An Engineer

An Instance of Perspective

Archive for the ‘Canon’ Category

The Road to Phanfare

leave a comment »

Carbonite acquired Phanfare in 2011 and at the time, I could not talk too much about the acquisition. But some time has passed now and the details are not nearly as sensitive. In this post, I don’t want to focus so much on what has happened since the acquisition (not much) but instead, what led me to start the company with my friend Mark Heinrich.

My love for photography started at Stuyvesant High School in the early 1980s. Back then, a friend who had a Canon AE1 taught me the basics of SLR photography. I bought a Pentax K1000 and eventually a Nikon FG. I still remember trading my K1000 for the FG, taking the modest credit that Willoughby’s offered me. I wish I had kept that first camera.

I became photo editor of the Stuyvesant Spectator newspaper during my senior year, 1985. By that point I had a darkroom in our laundry room at my childhood home on Staten Island. I developed all the Tri-X pan for the staff photographers, creating proof sheets. I had modest equipment and a lot of patience.

I never considered photography to be art. Maybe some photos are art, but most simply document life, communicate a moment. For me, photography satisfied my desire to leave something behind, to be more than dust in the wind. I also loved the technical aspects of photography and the gear. The Japanese cameras are beautifully made, finely engineered instruments. They are almost like jewelry.

I took a lot of photos – as many as I could afford to develop. I always had basic equipment. In college at Dartmouth I had only a 50mm lens and one terrible Vivitar zoom that was so poor I could never get myself to mount it.  I joined a company at college, Picture This, that took photos at sorority and fraternity formals. I learned how to shoot portraits and groups, use a flash properly and avoid red eye. I learned that at sorority formals, photos without men sell better than those with the men. The men were transitory.

When digital photography started to first take off in grad school at Stanford, I played with a Apple QuickTake 100 we had in our research group. In the late 90s I watched the founding of Ofoto and Shutterfly with great interest. These were ultimately transitional digital photo services – they focused on creating physical prints and objects from digital images, something with little long term appeal.

Many of us in grad school had simple web sites that we maintained on our workstations with our personal digital photos. These websites were the equivalent of the personal photo album of our childhood, the album that was in the living room cabinet. Most of the images that we published to these sites we got from CDs that Kodak gave us when they developed our film. digital cameras were poor quality in the mid 90s and expensive, way outside the budget of a graduate student. Our websites were often static HTML pages generated by Perl scripts. They were protected from prying eyes via an .htaccess file that popped up a password prompt.

After Stanford, in 1999, I founded my first company with my friend Mark Heinrich: Flashbase. I will talk about Flashbase another time, but it had little to do with photography. DoubleClick acquired Flashbase in 2000 and Mark and I finally had some financial security for the first time in our lives. We started buying a lot more digital cameras. I owned one of the first Nikon CoolPix cameras and the Canon D30, D60, and so on. Our digital images were piling up and we were not sure what to do with them.

Keep in mind, this was before facebook, before YouTube. By 2004, Mark and I were interested in doing something in digital photography. We both loved it, and we both had no idea where we should be keeping the long tail of our digital photos. We were certain that keeping them on our local hard drive was the wrong answer, that your hard drive was where photos go to die. Unseen by anybody, the disk would eventually fail. We hypothesized that folks would pay for a high quality archive of their digital photos. And we thought that the internet should be your master copy of your digital photos, not your computer.

The idea of the cloud being the master copy of your digital photos was not popular yet in 2004. Networks were not fast enough and disk was way too expensive. Steve Jobs was pushing the idea of your Mac being your digital hub, centered around iTunes. To make the whole thing workable, we designed a fat network client that would run on your PC and sync your photos to internet, moving small versions fast and fullsize versions in the background. The idea was that you could work with your photos on the local app while the app moved the photos to and from the net in the background.

We were fixated, perhaps wrongly, on preserving fullsize originals. And at that time, there was simply no way to store fullsize originals and have the service be ad-supported and free. Plus, we did not want ads on our personal photo albums. And so we decided that Phanfare needed to be a subscription service.

I will tell the Phanfare story in another post, but in retrospect, we were not wrong about where photography was going but we were way too early. It would take another ten years before Apple would release their Photos app that synchronizes your iPhone roll with the cloud and shows it across your devices. Google Photos is the same idea (but better). These ideas are right in my opinion. You should be able to shoot and the photos should magically get mirrored to all your devices and stored reliably in the cloud. There should be no upload step.

What we were wrong about is that websites of photos at unique URLs would be the way people share photos. People share photos through social media when they want to share with more than a few people and by direct message (email, SMS, google hangouts, etc) when they want to share with a single person.

I learned a lot from the Phanfare experience and I will share some of those things in coming posts.

Written by erlichson

July 23, 2015 at 10:43 pm

Initial impressions of the Canon 5D Mark II

leave a comment »

I got my Canon 5D Mark II last week and have taken it through its paces. I don’t feel like I fully understand all the new features and options in the camera yet, but I do have some first impressions.

Video is by far the most exciting feature of the new camera for me. I often found myself carrying my point and shoot and DSLR so that I could capture a few short video clips.

The video mode of the 5D Mark II definitely feels like it was added late in the design process, or at least requires a DSLR addict to love it. It starts by hitting the liveview button on the back of the camera, and then you can hit the set button in the middle of the wheel to start shooting. I got used to this pretty quickly but could it be more cumbersome? I doubt it.

I had hoped that there would be some sort of depth of field control for video, but as far as I can see, there is not (I could be wrong, just got started). And the camera can not reliabliy adjust focus while shooting video. Before you start the shot, you can focus by hitting a button that brings down the mirror and uses the standard autofocus hardware on the camera. Or you can have the camera do constrast detect focusing off the live view image. That is very slow and unreliable.

The reality is that you focus before the shot begins and if there is any refocusing to be done during the shot, it is going to be manual.

Others have also commented on some of the limitations of the video handling on the Canon 5D Mark II. But it hardly matters because the video you get from the Mark II is stunning. The camera records in 1080p mode spewing more than 25 megabits/second of of data. Although I can’t figure out how to control the depth of field, it is typically quite shallow, which tends to be what you want.

I can tell already that I am going to love this camera. But I can’t recommend it for someone who is not interested in the more technical aspects of digital photography. There are just too many great options to dig into.

Written by erlichson

January 19, 2009 at 2:13 pm

Posted in Canon

Canon: This is the camera I want

with 8 comments

I own two digital cameras today. I own a Canon 5D digital SLR and a very small Powershot SD870 IS.

The SLR takes gorgeous photos with great depth of field control and amazing low light performance. Alas, when I carry my usual set of lenses (16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L and 85mm f1.8) and a flash in my lowpro backpack, its like bringing along another child on our family excursions. I take care of the camera and my wife takes care of the kids. I would estimate my bag weight at 10lbs.

The Powershot SD870IS is great outdoors, but you can’t really blur the background on a portrait with the camera (focal length too short), it is not that responsive and the low light performance is mediocre to bad. On the plus side, the camera is small enough to ski with and takes great video. It is light at 5.8oz!

The camera I want is a point and shoot camera that combines the best of both worlds. The camera would use the sensor of the Canon 40D (1.6 crop factor relative to standard 35mm, 10 megapixel) and have a built-in 22mm (35mm equivalent), f1.8 prime, coated Canon lens. That would provide a view that looked like a “standard” 35MM lens. The camera would also provide a digital cropped mode that created the equivalent of an 85MM lens (53MM lens in cropped form factor).

Let’s call this camera the Canon T4, named in honor to the Yashica T4 that offered something similar in the world of film. The Canon T4 would be the enthusiasts travel camera of choice. I am going to estimate the weight at 10oz, 3oz less than the Canon G9 disaster (we are losing the optical zoom).

This camera would likely be about the same size as the Canon G9, but a lot flatter. And it would have amazing image quality and awesome low light performance. You could shoot indoors, without flash, at IS0 1600. When used in cropped “portrait” mode at 85MM equivalent, it would produce images that are approximately 4 megapixels. But since these bits would be off a high quality prime lens and 40D sensor, you would be perfectly happy with them. (No optical zoom please. Just lowers image quality and makes for a darker lens). Background blur (bokeh) would come naturally to this camera because of its bright max aperture and longer focal length.

While we are dreaming, let’s imagine this camera has a few creative modes like Aperture priority, Shutter priority and decent shot to shot time. It would omit the optical viewfinder in favor of a bright LCD. The optical viewfinder would be annoying in digital crop mode anyway. Don’t scrimp on the auto-focus system.

Who would buy this camera? prosumers and amateurs who want the quality of a digital SLR but the weight and convenience of a point and shoot. This camera would take images that were indistinguishable from the Canon 40D at 35mm (equivalent). The camera would also sell into the photojournalism market. Might be a lot more convenient to carry around a war zone than a digital SLR (Remember when Rangerfinders and photojournalism where synonymous?)

It seems like this camera is technologically possible today. This is what the PowerShot G9 should have been. Instead the G9 is a heavier version of the Powershot SD line with no real benefit in image quality or high ISO noise and bad depth of field control.

Do you want this camera? Say so in the comments. Maybe Canon will notice.

Written by erlichson

April 25, 2008 at 10:41 am