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

Kinotehnik LCDVF

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Smaller and simpler.

The Long Version: LCD viewfinders are designed to work around usability problems that shouldn't really exist in the first place, so I suppose it was inevitable that one would find a home on my Sigma DP3 Merrill. While I'm happy enough with a bulky and complex tripod-mount one on my big SLR, a compact camera needs something smaller and simpler. After considering a number of options, including some very expensive ones, I picked up the Kinotehnik LCDVF.

The LCDVF – please don't make me type the company name again – is about as simple as it gets. The shell is one piece, without any hinges or diopter adjustment doohickery, with a two-element lens and a rubber eyecup that can be removed and repositioned for left-eyed people.

The viewfinder attaches with magnets to a metal frame that adheres to the camera. It's secure enough that I can pick up and carry the 1-pound camera from the viewfinder; this isn't wise, but it's possible. The package includes two of these metal frames, which gives the option to use the one viewfinder on two cameras, or provides insurance against adhesive mishaps.

The metal frame and magnets makes for a streamlined and lightweight attachment method that's perfect for a little camera, and weighs far less than attaching via a tripod-ready plate. It almost verges on elegant, but mine has just a little bit of side-to-side wobble that I've fixed by shimming the hood with a single thickness of gaffer tape.

The LCDVF has a 2x magnification ratio, and to be honest I can't really see the difference between it and a 3x view. The resulting image is large and clear; the 28mm-e lens that I used to take the above photo doesn't do it justice. The inside of the hood really is that shiny, though. I've never noticed it as a problem when I'm actually taking photos, but it is really shiny.

Of course not every camera needs the assistance of this kind of viewfinder; I'd never consider attaching it to my Ricoh GR, for example. But having the LCDVF on the DP3M really does improve my stability with this long-lensed camera; I'd rate its as being just a bit less of an improvement than a lightweight monopod. While I was mostly hoping that the LCDVF would help me see the DP3M's screen, now that I know what it can do I wouldn't hesitate to put one on any LCD-based camera that usually uses a long lens.

I bought the LCDVF because the Kamerar QV1 (right) added too much bulk, weight, and complexity to a little camera like the Sigma DP3M. While Kamerar does have smaller viewfinders, the slickness and simplicity of the LCDVF is hard to beat.

But simplicity may be only skin-deep with the LCDVF. It has a double-element lens that's noticeably thicker than the one in my Kamerar or Hoodman loupes, and Kinotehnik says that it won't risk concentrating sunlight and burning the LCD the way other designs can. I haven't felt the need to test this myself.

In a fairly short time period I went from owning just the Hoodman Hoodloupe – and never using it – to having two different magnifying loupes to suit two different cameras. That's probably excessive, but it suits each individual machine and I don't see a lot of overlap. If I had to choose only one, it would be the LCDVF, and I'd just have to put up with having the magnetic frame tapeglued to the back of the D800 during the 95% of the time that I don't use an LCD hood on that camera.

The LCDVF and Sigma DP3M is such a natural combination that I prefer to use it whenever the little Foveon camera isn't on a tripod – which is the opposite of how I use my SLR with its bigger LCD loupe. Life can be funny like that.

last updated 13 june 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

Hoodman Hoodloupe 3.0

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 1 out of 5
Yeah, but: It's a classic.

The Long Version: The Hoodman Hoodloupe, patent US 7,386,229 B2 and 7,034,877, was the first thing I thought about when I needed to use my D800's live view for manually focusing a lens when outdoors. And why not? It's been around forever – I remember seeing ads for it back in the days of actual print magazines, so it must be good to still be on the market.

The Hoodman Hoodloupe is very slightly misnamed: it is a hood, but loupes typically offer magnification, which the Hoodman doesn't. Instead it has a diopter correction eyepiece and sturdy sides that block out stray light, making the camera's LCD easier to see by cutting out glare and distractions. It is used like a loupe, however, being hand-held and moved into place each time it's needed.

The Hoodloupe is clearly an idea that predates the era of SLR cameras that capture video, and the mirrorless revolution that followed it. The need to see the camera LCD clearly in any light was once the exclusive difficulty of photographers using tripods and seeking critical sharpness as they leisurely take photos of churches and mountains. If that's all that it's asked to do then the Hoodloupe performs well, but there's a new generation of video-inspired LCD magnifiers out there that have surpassed it for all-around use.

The Hoodman does still have some advantages over most of the newer products on the market: it's well-built, simple, small, and comparatively inexpensive. Even today it would be a good choice for anyone making a pilgrimage to the great tripod-holes of the American midwest or west coast. If this is something that's on your bucket list then consider picking one up – mine's available for $40, tax and shipping included.

last updated 6 june 2014

Manfrotto MP3-D01 Pocket Series Tripod

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 0 out of 5
Yeah, but: Chant "don't buy, don't buy."

The Long Version: It's Manfrotto that calls the MP3-D01 a "Pocket DSLR Support" with a 1.5kg load capacity, not me. This flat plate with three independent legs is designed to stay attached to the bottom of a camera and simply unfurl when it's needed. It does fit a DSLR well enough – it's far too big for other cameras – but it certainly does not hold 1500 grams.

My D800 with the Sigma 35/1.4 should add up to 1555g, and the MP3 collapsed at the sight of it. Switching to the 60/2.8G lens brought the weight down to 1325 grams, and brought down the Manfrotto as well. It could mostly hold the camera with the 50/1.4G attached – 1180 grams – but I'd never rely on it for that task. In fact, my Joby Micro 800 – with a rated 800g capacity – did just as well at that level.

The MP3 has plenty of strength to hold little pocket cameras, but it's far too wide to be elegant. Manfrotto does explicitly say that it fits large cameras, so its unsuitability here shouldn't be a surprise, even though this is finally within its actual weight capacity.

So the only cameras that it really works with are the smaller ones with interchangeable lenses, as long as those lenses don't project below the camera body. My Nikon V1 works, even with the large 30-110mm lens, so that's a win.

Put another way, the non-musical MP3 is most suitable for cameras that have the memory card next to the battery, the door to which its broad breadth will almost certainly block.

The thinness of the MP3-D01 necessitates a thin and fiddly little attachment screw, which can be positioned in any of three slots to let the camera balance on it. This makes the tripod-thing awkward to remove and a nuisance to attach, but I suppose when a well-engineered product performs at this level some sacrifices must be made.

While I hardly ever actually use it this way, I have found one application that suits the little Manfrotto pocket tripod. It can hold my audio recorder off of a table, angled upwards enough to be useful, and doesn't block any ports or the battery door in the process. In this case its thinness really does let it stay attached to the recorder when it's in use or being carried, just like the promo material says it should.

The slightly thinner profile of the Manfrotto MP3 is its only advantage over the Joby Micro 800 that I usually use. The Joby is simply better in every other way, whether using it to support the camera or while using the camera with the support folded away. More elegant design, easier to attach, easier to use, less likely to obstruct battery doors, no little screw to lose, and significantly cheaper as well: at the time of writing, B+H has the Joby Micro 800 for $20 versus the MP3 for $35.

Seriously. Buy the Joby instead.

last updated 17 nov 2013

Ricoh GV-1 Viewfinder

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: Society for Camera Anachronisms approved.

The Long Version: The Ricoh GV-1 is an add-on optical viewfinder that's marked with 21mm and 28mm framelines, which makes it a decidedly odd accessory in these days of electronic viewfinders and zoom lenses. It conveys no information aside from a rough approximation of framing in exchange for considerably increasing the bulk and cost of the few cameras that can use it. On the other hand, it does come with a nylon carrying case, so there's that.

Ricoh also makes the GV-2, which is a physically smaller optical viewfinder with only 28mm framelines, but it offers less eye relief than the bulky GV1. That rules it out for me – I can see the GV1's 28mm lines with my glasses on, but the 21mm lines are a struggle. Both Ricoh viewfinders have squarish black stippled metal bodies that match the GR-series cameras.

With an eye to the viewfinder the framelines take up almost the entire field without the 'tunnel' effect that SLRs are famous for. The 28mm framelines are visually larger than a midrange DSLR's viewfinder, and to my eye even exceeds the entire viewing window of the Fujifilm X-Pro and X100/s optical viewfinders. It can't match the awesome m-mount Zeiss Ikon for viewfinder size – few can – but it the GV1 is brighter.

The guides on the GV1 are a bit tighter than the actual capture area, especially toward the bottom of the frame. The lines are basically in a 3:2 aspect ratio, despite the viewfinder being made for for the small-sensor GR Digital line, but it makes surprisingly little difference between the two camera types. The viewfinder is also offset to the right to avoid the pop-up flash that's next to the hotshoe on the GRD cameras, but the new GR has a bit more room up top, which will make it more compatible with other 28mm finders.

The view through the GV1 is very good. Clear, bright, and with good optics in its own right, although its slight barel distortion exceeds that from the lenses of the GR/D4. An interesting side effect of looking through a wide-angle accessory finder like the GV1 is that they make vertical perspective visible, which is something that we're normally blind to although it absolutely will show up in the GR's photos.

For critical framing the GV1 is useless, and for normal use it's not really necessary; the LCD screens on the GD and GRD4 are very good even in bright sun. (Although the lower default brightness of the GR makes it slightly weaker than its predecessor in this regard.) It's occasionally useful as a fast framing aid, even with the LCD on, since I find it more intuitive to bring the camera up and quickly boresight my subject rather than look away from my subject and concentrate on the image on the LCD screen, which may not even be in focus yet. I've done this with taxis and with fighter jets, and it works just fine for snapshots, although obviously composition is somewhat extemporaneous.

Where the optical finder really shines is for discreet photography with the LCD turned off. "Street" photography is an obvious example, but there are ample other times when it's nice to be subtle, smooth, and unobtrusive. Here the GR's focus confirmation LED comes in handy, letting the camera and viewfinder work as one unit. I just have to remember that the brim of my hat won't be in the photo even if it impinges into the viewfinder's field of view.

The time when I'm most likely to remove the GV1 is when I'm taking macro photos, since it's very easy for it to cast a shadow on the subject. The good news is that my GV1 usually lives on the bigger-sensored GR, which is fairly bad at macro photography, leaving my closer-focusing GRD4 naked and ready to go. So the viewfinder even gives me a quick way to tell my two Ricoh cameras apart, which probably isn't a problem that many people will have.

Having the viewfinder attached does considerably increase difficulty in finding a camera case that will hold the complete assembly. I usually carry my GR in a neoprene sleeve that was meant for a 5" tablet; it cost $7 at an office supply store, making it the best accessory-per-dollar I've ever spent on anything photographic.

Seeing the camera with the viewfinder attached has different effects depending on the audience. Non-photographers seem more inclined to notice the camera and then dismiss it; instead of being just another compact digital camera it looks more like a film or toy camera. People who know cameras seem to take it a little more seriously, since it says something about the owner's intent, even if it may be a bit of an affectation.

Yes, it is something of an anachronism, but the GR with its matching viewfinder just has a certain integrity that I really enjoy. That might sound trivial or superficial, but i've proven over and over again that I take better photos when I'm using gear that I like. At the very least, I take more photos with gear that I like, and often that's the same thing.

last updated 27 spet 2013

Lowepro Photo Hatchback AW 22L

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: Yes, it's yet another camera bag review.

The Long Version: I'm going to get this out of the way right up front – the Lowepro Photo Hatchback AW is an exceptional mixed-use camera daypack. I've owned seven different backpacks, with four currently in the rotation, and the 22L Hatchback is easily my favourite.

As a mixed-use bag the Hatchback has a large compartment to hold non-camera items, which is reached through a zippered opening across top of the bag. The secret to the bag, and the feature that gives it its name, is the body-side access panel to the camera compartment that takes up its lower half. This is basically invisible when the bag's being worn, letting the Photo Hatchback be mistaken for a basic daypack or student's book bag.

The Hatchback looks so unremarkable that it's almost remarkable. There's a fabric grab-handle on top, tall elastic water-bottle pockets on each side, and a couple of access zippers across the top and front of the bag. There's no tangle of cinch straps and clips, no lash points for MOLLE gear, no intricate panels of heavy-weight Cordura that can double as a cheese grater. It's an untechnical and unpretentious bag.

The lower compartment of the 22L Hatchback can carry a large SLR with a short lens attached. There's still room alongside for another lens and perhaps another small accessory. The 60/2.8G with its hood attached squeaks in and still leaves room for my entire three-lens Nikon V1 kit alongside it, and I can tuck the battery charger in as well. Even my F5 can fit by lying flat when it's lensless or with a 50/1.4D on it; there's still room for a decent-sized lens beside it, too. This could be an uber-stealth way to carry a full-sized SLR and separate standard zoom.

The top compartment can fit enough stuff to get me through an overnight trip somewhere. It has two internal mesh organizer pockets and a zippered nylon pocket that's big enough to hold tickets, passports, or paperback books separately and securely. There's even a keychain leash inside. The side bottle pockets are tall enough to securely hold an 800ml steel water bottle or 710ml plastic soft drink bottle, and strong enough that I'll never worry about losing what I carry. Considering that Penny's MEC Book Bag will dump her travel mug onto the sidewalk with regularity, this ability isn't something to take for granted.

An iPad-like tablet, or the svelte 11" Macbook Air, will fit in the padded slot in the Hatchback's front organizer panel. I really prefer this to the customary back-panel laptop slot because it stops the weight of the bag's contents from squeezing and damaging the laptop screen. There's also an unpadded front compartment to the organizer panel, and it has a triangular profile that makes it substantially wider at the bottom, making it very useful for longer objects that otherwise wouldn't fit inside the bag.

My day-job load is to have a camera or two, like my GA645zi, V1 system, or Ricoh GRD4 tucked into the camera compartment. My laptop, audio recorder, and its shock-mount go in the front panel, where they can be reached easily. A water bottle fits in one side pocket, and an umbrella or beverage – depending on the weather forecast – rides in the other. The top compartment can hold a light jacket when it's cold or a change of clothes when its hot, and a brown-bag lunch will fit in either the top or bottom of the bag depending on my priorities for the day.

For more serious outings this little bag will hold my D800 with 60/2.8G (or 50/1.4 if I expect it to be dark out) and Nikon V1 system, with its two zooms and fast normal lens, in the camera compartment. There's still room in there for their mutual charger or a compact camera. My audio recorder's shock mount assembly and Joby Gorillapod Focus, with its Manfrotto 484RC2 head, fit side-by-side down the front panel. Then I can either put the audio recorder and headphones into the top compartment loose – which is great for recording when I may need to move along promptly, like under a highway overpass – or use a Crumpler Haven insert to keep them organized, along with another small camera, alternative windscreen, multitool, and other bits and pieces that make up my audio kit.

Like the Flipside Sport bag that I previously reviewed, the padded camera compartment is removable, and has a built-in draw-stringed cover and handles for the occasion. (Protip: this is a great place to stash a few runs of gaffer tape.) The interior panel that divides the bag is held in place with velcro, so it can be tucked out of the way to create a single full-height compartment should the need ever arise.

As one of Lowepro's "AW" bags the Hatchback includes a cover for poor weather. I'm normally not too diligent about deploying these, but because this is a lighter-weight bag I do use it when I'm carrying my laptop. I really like the outward-facing, top-loading tablet-slash-Macbook-Air compartment, but it closes with a standard YKK zipper and has only a modest storm flap to cover it. Life's a barter.

The good news is that the AW cover is well-designed, and has loops that secure it around the shoulder straps at the top of the bag. The cut is roomy enough to fit over water bottles or similarly-sized items in the side pockets, as well. It's also handy for keeping the front of the bag clean when it's set down, as the camera compartment remains accessible. And of course when the cover's not needed it tucks into its spacious compartment at the bottom of the bag, where it provides a little extra cushion to the contents.

The fit on the 22L model is wider than I'm used to, with the straps resting toward the outside of my not-overly-broad shoulders. The sternum strap, which is removable, becomes very useful if I'm carrying a lot of weight. Otherwise I just see it as an opportunity to improve my posture, and it's a fairly easy trait to live with. There is also a removable webbing waist strap, which I immediately removed and haven't missed. While this bag can carry a lot of weight when it needs to, other bags, like as my Flipside Sport 20L, will still be filling the heavy overland hauler role for me.

Even with the large and stylishly-distressed 'LOWEPRO' running up the front of it, this bag looks like nothing. In my neighbourhood, which is on the edge of a large university, wearing this bag is the next best thing to being invisible. It's also worth pointing out that that the Hatchback is the least expensive of all of the camera backpacks I've ever owned, which makes this next bit especially telling: it and my Billingham Hadley Pro are the only camera-centric bags that I'll use even when I'm not carrying a camera.

I don't drive, so having the right bag matters a lot – I walk, at least part of the way, for everything I do. If I'm moving it means that I'm carrying everything that I need. I've spent hours sitting with the Hatchback on my lap during inter-city bus trips, have walked a couple hundred kilometres with it in the city centre, and I may have even taken it around fences and into places that I might need to depart from unexpectedly. After all that I've had no problems and no complaints. It doesn't look like much, but the Hatchback is a pretty awesome little bag.

last updated 21 may 2013

Nikon FT-1 Mount Adapter

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: It's the best there is.

The Long Version: I have to be fair to the FT1 lens mount adapter, since it does accomplish the task of letting F-mount lenses attach to the Nikon 1-series cameras. It provides metering and camera-based aperture control, and allows static centre-point autofocus with AF-S lenses. In Nikon's world of restricted interoperability and reduced feature sets that's really all it can be expected to do, its $270 MSRP notwithstanding. (Dealers, as usual, may sell for less.)

The main problem with the FT-1 is that even the best F-mount lenses don't really shine on the noisy CX sensors. While workable, putting a big lens on the small body is awkward, and it's made worse by the low weight limits on the 1-system lens mounts. But when used with enough compassion and forgiveness my little V1 and FT1 can produce decent results, which should be familiar territory for the fans of these little cameras.

My personal experience with the FT1 adapter has been that it doesn't really solve much of a problem. The Nikon V1 is a camera that I use for its non-photographic strengths: being small, light, and quiet, it goes to places and gets used at times when my D800 wouldn't be an option. Putting an FX or DX lens on the V1 removes its 'small and light' attributes, leaving only quietness as its main attraction, with just a limited increase in its actual photographic value.

The FT1 is a small adapter, about the size of the 10-30 or 18.5mm lenses, and it has a tripod mount that supersedes the cameras' own when a "heavy" lens is attached. And that's pretty much all of them: any lens that's over 380 grams needs to be supported when it's on the camera lest it damage the mount. This is a pretty low limit; the 85/1.8G is pushing it, and the 60/2.8G is over. But for a little perspective, my CX lens trinity – 10-30, 30-110, and 18.5/1.8 – total up to just 360 grams. It's easy to feel like Hercules when everything around you is sized for Newton.

It feels quite natural to handle the combination by the lens when there's something bigger, like the 105VR, attached. But I have to admit that I haven't always strictly followed the 'handle-by-the-lens' requirement with smaller lenses like the 60/2.8G or 50/1.4G, and have had no ill effects to date. Nikon also advises that we don't fog our lenses by breathing on them – apparently it can damage the coatings – so I suspect that their product advisories are being written by liability lawyers rather than real-world practicality experts. As always, participate in this world at your own risk.

The tripod foot on the FT1 sits flush to the camera, so any quick-release plate that projects behind the mount will need to be attached after the adapter is on the camera. Nifty.

Nikon's AF-S lenses will autofocus on the FT1 adapter, using only the central AF point and without any tracking or CAF abilities. I've been using it with the 50/1.4G, 60/2.8G, and 105/2.8VR, and the results have been pretty good. The autofocus from those three isn't quite as quick as with the native CX lenses, including in low light, which surprised me given the brighter apertures of the real Nikon lenses over the f/dark 1-series zooms.

Optical issues like distortion, corner sharpness, and vignetting are basically non-existent on the lilliputian CX sensor. I'm tempted to make a snide "only using the best part of the lens" joke, but that's just leftover bitterness from my Olympus days talking.

Nikon is working very hard to forget about the whole "AF-D" lens era, and hopes you are too, but they do make some concession to motorless lenses. Not only do they graciously permit magnified viewing on the LCD, but they even include the familiar triangle-and-dot rangefinder focusing cues on the LCD screen. This is actually much more useful on the V1 than it is on an SLR, with results that are accurate enough that I won't always use the magnified view. There's something to be said for extensive depth of field.

Manual focus and older "AF" lenses on the FT1 retain the ability to zoom in on the LCD for focus assist, but lose the rangefinder because it relies on the D-is-for-Distance chip in the lens.

One attraction of the FT1 adapter is to 'get more reach' from long lenses. To try this out I used the same lens on both the V1 and the D800, cropped the D800 frame to match the V1, and then compared the results. After a couple of rounds with the 500/4 and 105VR I will say that the D800 pulls slightly more out of a similarly cropped frame, despite putting only 4.8 megapickles on the target. (Compare crops: D800, downsampled from 1500x1000 pixels, and V1, downsampled from 2150x1500 pixels; the focus point is the left eye and bridge of his nose.)

If long-lens work was what I really wanted to do with my time – it isn't – I'd be buying a Pro DX camera like the D7100 instead of any Nikon 1. That would put almost as many pixels on the subject and provide massive usability improvements over a CX camera with the FT1 adapter.

While it's hardly a comprehensive or exhaustive comparison, I've also checked to see if there's any optical benefit in choosing an adapted F-mount lens over a native CX one. I put the Nikon 60/2.8G, which has a very good reputation, up against the 30-110 lens at 60mm. While the $600 prime macro lens did resolve a bit more detail than the $250 kit zoom, there wasn't a significant difference. This suggests that the lens isn't the limiting factor where sharpness is concerned – *cough* noisy pixel-dense sensor *cough* – so I'm not going to bother using the FT1 when there's a native lens that can do the job.

'Equivalence' sucks. That's the theory that says that the noise and depth of field from a wide-open 50/1.4 lens on a CX camera at iso100 will look about the same as a 135mm lens on an FX camera at f/4 and iso800. Looking at it that way there's no reason to use the semi-little 50/1.4+FT1+V1 setup when I could use the bigger 105VR+D800 combination, crop down for a bit more reach, and still stomp all over the V1's image quality. When I'm under-lensed my own experience tells me that using the D800 and cropping away 85% of its pixels still gives better image quality than switching the same FX lens onto the FT1-V1.

Yup, that sucks.

But that's not to say that there's no reason to use bigger lenses on the FT1. Despite their operational limitations, it does give options that the diminutive catalog of petite CX lenses lacks. Fast primes are an obvious choice, but not the only one. The small sensor is a great equalizer, so even the modest 18-55 turns in good results; this ubiquitous lens has a useful 50-150mm-ish range, and it isn't too big for the camera. Stepping up to an f/2.8 DX standard zoom keeps the great range but adds a modest ability to drop out the background, and could be an effective PJ/wedding lens. And even if the results aren't better than a heavily cropped file from a contemporary SLR, using different tools and playing with unconventional options often helps the creative process.

Anyone who uses a V1, or any CX "Nikon 1" camera, does it despite plenty of very good reasons not to. Image quality was never very high on the list of positives for the system, but the point of it is that there are times when an SLR isn't a practical, or even possible, option. Using FX or DX lenses does mostly take away its advantage of smaller size, but it remains more discreet than an SLR and keeps the advantage of silence.

I'm not about to run out and buy more lenses just to use on the adapter, but the FT1 is worth considering if there's already a CX camera and AF-S lenses in the house. I don't use it very often in either my casual day-to-day camera-carrying or my dedicated photography sessions, but it was vital in catching family photos across the winter holidays. It works no miracles, but it's not a bad thing to have just the same.

Finally, a ranting aside:

The broader problem is that Nikon's efforts to cripple the 1-system as a photographic tool extends to its attitudes toward non-Nikon lens adapters. The V1 can't magnify the viewfinder for focus confirmation, shoot in anything but manual mode, or meter the exposure. Let me repeat that last point: with a generic lens adapter the V1 is completely unwilling to meter or even preview exposure before the shot is taken. I bought an adapter for my Zeiss M-mount lenses, which match the camera perfectly, but using them is essentially unworkable in practice.

Does Nikon think that they already offer everything anyone could want, and that they can be a photographer's complete universe? Did they miss the years of Panasonic, Olympus, and even latecomer Sony selling thousands of cameras to people who want to use decades' worth of older lenses from other systems? Or have they intentionally hobbled the 1-series to drive sales of their own ill-suited lenses at the expense of their customers?

As with many of Nikon's actions, they could be motivated by hubris, incompetence or malice: it's so hard to tell.

last updated 21 apr 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

Crumpler Noose Wrist Strap

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: It's neoprene, what's not to like?

The Long Version: The Crumpler Noose is a nylon and neoprene camera wrist strap that continues the companies' long tradition of unremarkable and bland product names. Available only in black, it's a mid-weight strap that works well on everything from full-sized SLRs down to mirrorless cameras and large compacts.

I like the Noose because it's a sensible size and well made. Many of the neoprene wrist straps on the market have cuffs so wide that they could be used for pulling heavy carts, but then the strap connects to the camera via a plastic quick-snap buckle. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Op/Tech.) The Noose costs a bit more than its more primitive cousins, but it also isn't embarrassing to use, which is a big win.

Crumpler doesn't include the hardware to attach the Noose to lugs that use split-rings to hold the webbing, such as many Nikon cameras. These should come with the camera, so it isn't a big deal; the attachment ring that I'm using in these photos is from a Domke strap, sold separately.

I'm not used to this in a wrist strap, but the Noose has a distinct front and back: it's designed lie flat around your wrist and across the back of your hand. For this to work I need to put my hand through the front – top? – of the loop. I'm used to straps that dangle from under my wrist, and I still get this wrong after a week of frequent use. But the Noose is worth the effort to get right. And rest assured, unlike its namesake, it's not self-tightening.

This strap also has a built-in pocket to hold an SD card, which is cleverly tucked into the flap that's secured with the red snap button. I was initially worried that using it would add some stiffness to the strap, but then I actually forgot that I had put a memory card into it, so that allayed my fears. There's just no reason not to tuck a spare / cheap card into it for emergencies.

So: it's comfortable, no bigger than it needs to be, adds a useful feature that others don't provide, and looks pretty good while doing it. I have to say that I'm quite pleased with it. If I ever decide to stop carrying my D800 on a shoulder strap, then I'll be back to talk to the helpful people at Aden Camera – my local store – and pick up another Noose.

last updated 4 dec 2012

Joby Gorillapod Micro 800

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Long-term testing may revise those numbers.

The Long Version: I'm one of those "magical purchase" people – I have this idea that bridging the distance between me and perfection is just a matter of finally finding the right thing to buy. For many people this causes a proliferation of unused home exercise equipment, for me it results in an aberrantly high number of tripods.

But the real insidious nature of this thinking isn't that it never works: it's that it sometimes does.

The Joby Gorillapod Micro 800 is one of those vexing exceptions. It's a tiny tripod that can stay attached to a small camera without making it unwieldily. Although I've only owned mine for a little while, it has let me take better photos more easily, and I haven't had to sacrifice anything in exchange for having it with me.

The branding decision that resulted in the "Gorillapod Micro" name is unfortunate, since it bears absolutely no resemblance to Joby's famous (and often badly copied) line of flexible Gorillapods. It really should be called the "Joby Micropod" and promoted more prominently on their website; I went looking for it after seeing one that someone else owned, and it was remarkably hard to find. I didn't know its full name at that point, and for some reason it doesn't rate a front-page photo.

Joby does redeem themselves somewhat by encoding the weight capacity into the full name, though: the JGP Micro 800 holds 0.8kg – 800 grams, 1.75 pounds – and is intended for Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Format ('MILF') cameras. There's also the Micro 250 – 0.25kg – that's more size-appropriate for point-and-shoot models, but I'm happy to have the bigger one.

When on a mirrorless format camera, such as my Panasonic GH1, the Micro 800 just blends in with the bottom of the machine. There's simply no need to ever take it off. I can even leave it attached to either of my little compact cameras when I tuck them in a pocket, although the folded legs do extend beyond their bodies. I don't mind this – it works as a more effective hand grip – but the smaller, lighter, and weaker Micro 250 is a good option if that's likely to be an objection.

There are a few functional compromises in exchange for the low profile of the simple and sleek Micros. One is that its 'positioning ball' has only a limited range of movement – if this was a big tripod it would be called a levelling base. So forget about astrophotography or portrait orientation, but very few people actually use little cameras for either of those tasks.

The other thing that it can't do is lock itself in place: there's no adjustment to the tension of the positioning ball or legs. In practice this isn't much of a limitation, but it may mean that cameras with off-centre tripod mounts, or long lenses, won't play well with the Micro even if their weight isn't completely out of bounds. Conversely, I can rest my three-pound Hasselblad on the Micro 800 quite comfortably, although I wouldn't use it for long exposures. So holding power is quite good, although the idea of twisting the camera against the full tension of the Micropod does take a few days to feel natural.

But the lack of tension adjustability is a faint little concern in the back of my mind. My Micro is still fairly new, but I'll either update this review or write a follow-up with the results of longer-term use, probably in six months or so.

The design of the Micro 800 is quite satisfying. It weighs enough to feel solid and strong, but not so much as to be objectionable. The rubber feet are grippy enough for good traction without snagging on fabric if it's being carried in a pocket or bag. And the design of the pivot, as well as interlocking flanges and grooves on the legs, should let it withstand quite a bit of wear and tear in daily use.

There is one choice to make when using the Micro: how tightly it should be attached to the camera. There's a coin-activated screw slot on the bottom, and when it's used to attach the Micro to the camera then it won't unscrew during regular use. The other option is to just use the legs of the Micro to twist itself into place, but then it can unscrew depending on how the legs and camera are turned. I usually don't use a coin to tighten the tripod screw, but if I was only using the Micro on one camera, I might make that occasional extra effort.

I own a little beanbag, a Manfrotto "pocket tripod", three small tabletop tripods, and two gorillapods. I use none of them on a regular basis, and despite developing a certain affection for long exposure photographs with my little Canon S100, could never bring myself to carry any of those bigger devices with me when I was just taking advantage of impromptu opportunities. Now that has completely changed. The Micro 800 is easy enough to use, and useful enough to have, that I will switch it to whatever little camera I happen to be using that day. The result is that some of my photos have become much better – almost like magic.

Added: I've now had a chance to play with a Joby Micro 250, and it's pretty awesome, too. Plenty of strength for a point-and-shoot camera, merges perfectly with the base of my Canon S100, and even had an attachment that would let it hold my phone in its case. One – or two – of them have been added to my 'must buy' list.

Added Again: Proving that I'm more prescient than I think I am, I have indeed bought two of the Joby Micro 250. The first was with the Griptight phone mount, which I've reviewed, and the second time was just the 250 tripod when I lost the first one. My Micro 800 is still going strong and is now used with my Nikon V1 system.

last updated 17 nov 2013

Nikon L37c UV Filter

Concept: 1 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: If it makes no difference then it doesn't matter.

The Long Version: I'm generally known for only having mild and ambiguous opinions, so I should say up front that I don't agree with the premise of using "protective" clear or UV filters. But I know that some photographers swear by them, so I decided to run some tests on an old Nikon L37c filter that I had lying around. It was included with a second-hand lens, so I don't know its history, but it cleaned up nicely and was in perfect condition. I'd consider this to be a medium-to-high-quality filter, with a green reflection from its coatings.

So I broke out the gear and tested this 62mm UV filter for sharpness. The camera was on the wooden Berlebach tripod that normally holds my GX680, and I set up my target on a lighter basalt tripod. Everything was squared and levelled, with the target clamped to a right-angle Manfrotto quick release plate.

The resolution target is my usual subject: a $20 bill. These have lots of fine printing and detail, and although they may not be as definitive as an officially sanctioned resolution charts, they're a lot cheaper and I'm just comparing the results by eye. To keep it flat it's securely taped to a section of marble floor tile. Since I wanted maximum detail, I used a Nikon 60/2.8G Micro lens, kept it at about 1:2, resolution and filled the frame.

I went through a number of different variations. I used Live View to focus, I used the focusing rails with zoomed-LCD manual focus, took three exposures at each setting, used mirror lock up and a cable release, and so on.

The filter made no difference.

I couldn't tell if the filter was on the lens or not just from looking at the results. I knew from the file name and sequence, but that was all.

Now, as I said earlier, this Nikon is a decent and multicoated filter. Just the same, I was quite pleased to see no drop in sharpness in this little trial. Perhaps there's a difference that test-lab gear would be able to detect, but I'm not worrying about that too much.

The second test was for flare and ghosting. I attached an LED flashlight to the target tripod and pointed it directly at the lens. The focus is on the black bar that's in front of the light, and the lens is at f/8 – that nine-bladed circular aperture thing really works. It's also worth noting that I use the D800's cropped DX mode for the sharpness test, since I only cared about the centre, but switched back to full-frame for the flare results.

This flashlight has an inset bulb, but no lens or reflector to blur the source.

Here are the results without the filter:

And here's the same setup, with the filter:

Similar images, and both are bad, but the one with the filter is worse. (Larger: with, without.) What I notice is that the starburst around the flashlight is stronger, there's an extra reflection on the lower-right (in front of the tripod) from the additional surface, there's a halo running around the lower-left corner, and some additional flare/ghosting visible in front of the bar that's about 15cm in front of the light.

I also checked for flare with off-axis light hitting the front of the lens. I switched to a brighter flashlight and flagged it to make sure that it didn't light my test scene. Here's what the setup looked like:

And here are the results, first with the flashlight off:

(larger)

Bare lens, no hood:

(larger)

Lens with filter, no hood:

(larger)

So here the difference matters a little more – it went from bad to worse, rather than very bad to very very bad. But I also tried a comparison with the hood on, which shaded the lens like this:

And the results, with the filter and hood both on, looked like this:

(larger)

To my eye the results are indistinguishable from the photos where the light was off. I'm pretty impressed – I knew that shading the front of the lens would help immensely, but I still expected to see some additional ghosting from light hitting the inside of the hood. The 60/2.8G has pretty good coatings, but it lacks the extra crushed-velvet lining that can be found on the inside of the more deluxe hoods.

So after an interesting afternoon, I can say that this filter had no visible effect on sharpness, and while it made flare and ghosting worse, it only did it under conditions that the lens was already producing enough to be objectionable. I imagine that better filters would have less flare, and may test that with my bigger B+W MRC filter some day, but I can't see any difference mattering very much if the lens itself shows as much flare as this one has.

And no, I haven't changed my outlook on 'protective' filters, because my argument is simply that the 'protection' that they provide is illusionary and unnecessary. I'm glad that I know a little more about them for people who do want to use them, and see no harm in it if it makes people feel better. But I do know that I'll advocate for proper lens hoods more strongly than I used to.

last updated 24 august 2012