If you're in the market for a decent digital SLR camera with several accessories, I have my Rebel XT for sale on eBay. I didn't actually want to put it up for sale, but now that I have my 5D Mark II, I just don't foresee using the Rebel XT at all anymore... so if I wait, it's just going to collect dust, take up space, and drop in value.


I started the price at $199, which would be a STEAL if the price doesn't go up much (the camera normally goes for $400+ ... and I am including a $100+ Sigma 55-200 lens, a $90 Loreo 3D lens, a $20-$30 travel tripod, a $30 filter set, and a $20 5 gb microdrive storage card):


I really considered saving it and giving it to a worthy person as a gift, but I simply don't know anybody who's big into photography and could really appreciate it and get good use out of it. So, if that's you, I figured I'd let the LJ world know in case anybody is in the market for a DSLR.

Click here to see some examples of the photos I've taken with

Here are some pics we took, straight out of the box (auto mode, no particular settings, no tweaking in photoshop, just snapshots to test the camera. The "paperweight" is an artistic depiction of the Milky Way galaxy by Glass Eye Studios; the person is me, trying on an H&M jacket Sarah bought for me... she took the photo, too)

The Canon 5D Mark II is an AMAZING CAMERA. I just got it like an hour ago, and I've already tested it out a bit.

The camera is amazing. The 24-105 f/4 IS USM lens is amazing.

Holy crap. I've never owned a piece of technology this awesome (or expensive). It makes me excited to use it.

I've never spent that much money before on a camera. I thought I never would. But it was just way too tempting... one of my few serious hobbies is photography (it's one that I can combine with my love of travel.. plus, I have even won some prizes and awards, which partly helped me pay for this new camera)

Not only that, but this camera is one of the first of the new "hybrid" cameras which are digital still cameras that shoot video. No biggie, right? Digital cameras have had a movie mode for many years.

Yeah. And that's one of the reasons I would bring the little old HP with me on my travels, in addition to the Canon Rebel XT digital SLR. But here's the problem: the video quality is horrible. It's 15-fps and VGA resolution (640x480); in other words, it's good enough to trigger a memory, but not good enough for anything else. Also, it's in a small camera with a fixed-lens, so not much control over the optics, depth of field, etc.


Well, the new hybrid cameras have changed that. They shoot HD video. And they do with with high-quality CMOS sensors and detachable professional lenses. Nikon's D90 was one of the first to offer this feature, and it sounds really good on paper (especially considering the camera price is much less than the Canon 5D Mark II)... but the quality of the video is actually pretty horrible. Unusable, really. Which is a shame, because otherwise I would have bought it. Then there's the new Panasonic Micro 4/3 Lumix GH1, which isn't out yet, but is also about $1500 and shoots HD video. But there aren't many lenses for it, they are lower quality optics than Nikon or Canon, and, again, the video looks pretty shabby.

But, of course the most expensive offering of the bunch, the Canon 5D Mark II (basically an upgrade to one of their professional-level cameras) creates HD video that is nothing short of amazing

And that's just the VIDEO part (sure, it doesn't have auto-focus, but if you know what you are doing as a movie cameraman, you never use autofocus)

The still photography part boasts a self-cleaning full-frame sensor at 21.1 megapixels, unbeatable low-light capability, an amazing ISO range (50 - 25,600), 3.9 shots per second continuous shooting, and several other features I'll be sure to explore later, but those are the ones that matter the most to me right now.

Enough that I spent almost as much on this as I did on my car. Wil newer, better, cheaper hybrid DSLRs come out sometime soon? Undoubtedly they will... but I'm not waiting 2-3 years for that to happen.

Sometimes (usually) I am stingy with myself and my purchases, because I have to be.

Well, I'm getting tired of it. I've never bought a new car. Hell, I've rarely even bought a car I liked (the exception being the Sebring convertible I just bought... but, again, it's 8 years old, 80,000 miles, some dents and dings, etc. But what can I do? It was $4200. I can't afford anything better.)


So, I've decided that I will be splurging on a new toy for myself at some point. I haven't decided whether it will be a portable live looped music system (ie. a compact computer, audio interface -- I can use my existing E-MU card -- and MIDI controller pedal so that I can trigger recording/playback of loops. This way I can, theoretically, play my music live by recording phrases and loops on my guitar, keyboard, drum machine, etc. and then triggering them at whim, layering them, playing other instruments over, etc.)

OR

a new camera. The last camera I bought was about 1.5-2 years ago, and was a very affordable Canon Digital Rebel XT (350D) with 2 lenses, which set me back about $400 or $450 total. Not bad for all of that. But it's not my ideal camera, and I'm getting frustrated by some limitations of it (image resolution and ISO for one, but also my lack of being able to record video during my travels. I have a nice video camera, but it's too bulky, unwieldy, and difficult for traveling purposes)

I am DEFINITELY going to be going the route, next time, of getting a digital camera with built-in HD video capability.

So far, I've narrowed it down to:

A) Casio EX-F1: Okay, so this isn't an SLR, which is a major drawback (you can't change the lenses) and it really bothers me that it only has 6 megapixel resolution. So I probably won't get it. But it has one of the coolest features ever: super-slow-mo using ridiculous frames per second (I think up to something like 1200 FPS!) Here's an example at 600 fps, so you can see what I mean:


I mean, think of how awesome it would be to shoot sports or nature shots with this (animals catching fish; birds flying; quarterback sacks; etc) BUT the resolution gets cut way down, so... probably not worth the $1000. :/

B) Nikon D90: For around the same price, you can get the Nikon D90 Digital SLR. Check out these awesome features:

• 12.3 Megapixels (not amazing, but pretty damn decent)
  
• GPS auto-tagging (this means every photo you take will automatically have precise GPS coordinates of where it was shot, embedded in the digital file. I've been saying for a LONG TIME NOW that digital photos need this and that there's really no reason it shouldn't be a standard digital camera feature. Again, great for travel, because you can remember EXACTLY where you were!)
  
• "D-Movie" HD Video mode (720p video clips) - Click here to see the D-Movie samples and you will see it's pretty damn cool. But it's not perfect... looks like a little bit of artifacts in there. But still. Awesome.
  

Only problem is... I've never owned a Nikon so I don't have any lenses and I'd have to buy those, as well.

C) Canon 5D Mark II - The baddest mofo of them all. Seriously. Don't even think it's out yet (shipping next month, I believe)... also expensive as crap. Almost $3000 JUST for the camera body! (not sure if my EOS lenses would work on this highest-end camera or not) But check out these specs:

• 21.1 Megapixels (could you possibly need more??)
  
• Up to 25,600 ISO. If you don't know what ISO is, it's the amount of light sensitivity allowed. The lower the number, the crisper the image but the more light required (100 needs lots of sunlight, for example) To give some idea, my current camera can go up to 1600 ISO, which means it can take pictures at around dusk before it gets too dark. This camera goes over 25000??! Holy crap.
  
• 1080p HD Video mode - Amazing amazing amazing HD video. Amazing. You can click here to see examples of the video
  

Unfortunately, I am heading to Hawaii NEXT MONTH and would like to get something before then. At this cost, just biting the bullet and buying a camera would cost LESS than taking another vacation to back, so I'd love to just charge forward with the Canon, BUT it looks like it won't be out in time for me to get it (on top of that... even at $3000, B&H Photo/Video has received so many requests for notification of when it is in stock that they won't even add my name to the notification list!! So it looks like getting hands on one could be difficult)

I'm leaning toward the Nikon, maybe... at least then I would have a camera with HD video, geo-tagging (notice the Canon does NOT have that), and costs 1/3 the price of the Mark II.

It's actually been a few weeks, but Sarah and I went to this on its opening weekend in Albuquerque at the beginning of October, and it was definitely memorable and pretty cool to see!

Well, first of all, we love visiting Albuquerque & Santa Fe anyway. There is so much character there, plus all the art you can eat in Santa Fe, and the beautiufl, serene, almost-alien desert landscape.

Just thought I'd post a pic of it since I never did that (there were, like, HUNDREDS of balloons going up into the air in the span of less than 2 hours. Pretty crazy. Also crazy was the 2 hours it took us to drive the last 1.5 miles on the highway at 5:30 am leading to the event)

[PS. Several other cool pics of it at my Flickr account]

Here's that random photo contest I entered; my photo placed 3rd (I have to admit, the 1st and 2nd place ones are nice... though personally I feel the 2nd place one is better than 1st... I guess people always like lightning shots, though)

So, apparently I won a prize for a photo that I submitted to a pretty random free photo competition (about shipping containers -- I wouldn't have even known about it if a stranger hadn't mentioned it in a comment on my flickr photo)

More to come later, I guess, after the winners (I was a runner-up to first-place) are announced/published and my prize (a digital camera) is shipped.

The internet has provided me with some weird free stuff, mostly due to this blog... which was not its intention or purpose at all (despite so many people trying to exploit the "blogosphere" for advertising, self-promotion, etc) But hey... I'll take what I can get!

Just more proof of what I think is the current trend: new media (such as Internet 2.0 and the affordable proliferation of media production equipment - digital cameras, video equipment, etc.) will enable more people to produce, publish, share; in short, you no longer have to have money or power to be part of mass media. Personally, coming from a background of no money or power, I think that is a fantastic thing.

Unfortunately, one side effect is that many of these people who think (or hope. or pray) that they have some talent, creativity, or skill... actually don't. So the public is stuck wading through a soupy muck of mediocrity (or worse) -- that's where the jobs of producers, editors, music labels, etc. came in handy during the Media Economy 1.0... to help sort through the absolute garbage.

But on the other hand... there ARE some great, entertaining, poignant, or intelligent people and things being created out there. Things which would have never found a market if they had to go through the BS of being approved for mass, cookie-cutter consumption ala Media Economy 1.0


So, the end result? I predict (and already starting to see this happen) that more people will get a slice of the pie. And the pie is huge, but because so many people are now players, the slices will be a lot smaller than they traditionally have been. What this means (and what the YouTard hopefuls don't realize) is that the age of being "king of the world" and reaching a status of tenure is not going to be possible. There will be far fewer bigwigs in the media world... but that's because there will be many more smallwigs and mediumwigs.

I, for one, think it's great. It's really an example of socialism/communism at its finest, and it means success will have to rely far less on money, politics, and nepotism and far more on art, insight, and true talent. In the end, that means we all (except for the few bastards who have enjoyed sitting at the top) win.

So, one of my photos from Flickr was chosen to be used for an online travel guide called "Schmap" -- basically it is interactive maps with photos and descriptions of various points of interest. A pretty good idea -- I've seen it done before on the AAA Triptik site and a few others (Yahoo does it as well, I think)

What do I get for having my photo of Sarah riding a bike toward the Muckross House in Killarney, Ireland? Nothing. I get my name as the credit and I get to tell people my photo was published in a travel guide. That's about it, in exchange for giving them free non-exclusive rights to my copyright image. I wouldn't honestly allow people such free reign of my copyrighted material if it was any good -- but let's face it, that photo is okay but it is not outstanding and not one of my best. A nice memory captured for me, but why not let some other people get some use out of it?

So I have succumbed to the mind-sucking beast that is Flickr. I never bought into the Kool-Aid until now; in fact, I couldn't STAND the site back when it had its little word association "game"

I even bought a paid "pro" account. It makes me ill that I've actually bought into the Web 2.0 nonsense, and that some blokes made millions of dollars by developing a website to SHARE PHOTOS (hello, the web has been able to do that pretty much since its inception - no special services necessary!)

But, having said that, I have to give it this: the site is incredibly well designed, easy to navigate, simple with just the right amount of features, and the price is right. It's $25/yr and it allows me to have unlimited backup, storage, organization, and sharing of my photos. That's not too bad.

Anyway, if you want to see pics from the big summer Europe vacation or Thanksgiving Prague trip I took, you can go check out my photos. I thought some of them came out pretty good... but then I look around at some of the other photos on Flickr and just... wow. It makes me want to tuck my tail between my legs and cower in a corner. Everytime I get flooded with a cornucopia of talent and creativity (and, sometimes, desperation and attention-whoring) it just reminds me how MASSIVE the population of the earth is and just how insignificantly each of us (and especially me) are. That's transcendentally profound and shit-in-my-pants frightening at the same time.

P.S. If you're wondering why some of my photos seem so much "better" than others, it is for this reason: I am really torn about whether I should include "less than stellar" photos that are still memories (ie. snapshots) in the collections, since people fall into one of two camps on there: A) Holier-than-thou art elitists who desperately aim to be gods with a Nikon; or B)Average Joes who basically suck but have a good way to store and share pics of friends, family, vacations, etc. with other people. Once again, I feel like I fall between the two (why do I always have to be gray instead of black or white?) so I figure... fuck it, I'll just throw in both.

P.P.S. If you want to see some truly good photos (as opposed to some of my semi-good ones), check out my list of "Favorites" - it's constantly growing. I stop looking at them when my head is on the verge of exploding.