Feb 26

Canon 5D Mark II vs. Nikon D700 Review Shoot-Out

Posted in: feature, review, Reviews, Today's Chili, top

For the last few months, we’ve been shooting with the two hottest cameras on the market. Lucky us. If you’ve been eyeing either one of these for purchase, here’s everything you need to know.

Camera makers love to invent new categories. And while that can often lead to endless bloat, the Canon 5D Mark II and the Nikon D700 represent a sweet spot that had never been hit before—the semi-pro body with a full-frame sensor. And it’s the category with the most bang for buck we’ve seen to date.

Yes, let’s just get this out of the way: Both the D700 and the 5D Mark II give you more for your dollar in terms of features, image quality and overall excellence than anything else we’ve used. Period. We know not everyone is prepared to drop $2,000 to $3,000 on a camera body these days, but if you’re thinking of investing for the long haul and, more importantly, have a good collection of either Nikon or Canon lenses, these are the two cameras you want to look at.

Why? Because they give you almost everything from Nikon and Canon’s uber-pro top end for a whole lot less, most importantly the full-frame sensor (FX in Nikon parlance). With a sensor the same size as a piece of 35mm film, your old Nikon or Canon glass will produce beautiful results on these new bodies (assuming they’re new enough to autofocus and couple to the cameras’ meters). And if you don’t have a collection built up already, your choices for new lenses will be significantly more exciting without the APS-C (DX, again, in Nikon’s world) sensor’s 1.6x crop factor changing their effective focal lengths.

The sensors in these two cameras are also responsible for their absolutely stunning high-ISO sensitivity performance—if you would have told me a few years ago that I could get 100 percent usable and almost noise-free shots in the dark at ISO 4000 with hand-holdable shutter speeds, I would have laughed in your Nostradamus-looking face. But that’s the reality here, and it’s awesome.

But of the two, which to choose? Now that’s the question, isn’t it. Here we’ll share what we’ve learned from shooting with the 5D Mark II and D700, for work and for play, and hopefully you’ll be able to make your own call.

Image Quality/Sensor Sensitivity
Again, both of these cameras will blow your mind with their high-ISO performance. Both go up to a ridiculous 25,600 ISO rating. The magic does not lie in their gaudy top-range though, which as you can see in our galleries below is still prit-tay, prit-tay noisy. No, the crazy thing here is that with both of these DSLRs, you can shoot at 3200, 4000, even 6400 in the right light and still have photos that look practically noise-free on screen. That’s just crazy, and you can’t accurately describe what this means to you as a photographer until you’ve shot your friends—handheld at quick enough shutter speeds—around a candle-lit table, and gotten photos that look absolutely gorgeous. Before, it took a crazy expensive lens to even come close to this, and even then, sensors (or even high-ISO film) couldn’t keep up.

With the 5D Mark II and the D700, you’re basically shooting with night vision. Like I was doing here at Snowscrapers a few weeks back. As you can see, there are floodlights, but it’s dark. These guys are moving fast. But I can crank up the ISO high enough to pan with them without blurring them out, and grab stuff like this, without the sky turning into a snowstorm of noise.

Let’s compare the high-ISO range of both cameras head-to-head, shall we:

As you can see from these unprocessed (save for JPEG conversion and re-sizing with Aperture) RAW shots files from each camera with high-ISO noise reduction at its highest setting on both, the D700 has a slight edge. The 5D Mark II’s higher resolution leaves lots of room for chroma noise, the bursts of mostly red and green you see in the full crops.

But still, unless you look at them at full-res, both cameras produced almost noiseless images up to ISO 3200. I exposed each shot at f/5.6 so the shutter speeds for the ISO 1600 and 3200 shots were upwards of a few seconds each, which makes the fact that they’re almost noise-free at any decent print or display size a phenomenal sign of both cameras’ noise-busting powers.

One big difference head to head in the imaging department is resolution. At 21 megapixels, the 5D Mark II has almost double the pixels of the 12.1 megapixel D700. As you well know by now, megapixels are not as important as sensor size/quality, but here, we’re dealing with two evenly matched, high-performance sensors, both of them full-frame. So in this case, an extra 9 million pixels does give you something: The added ability to heavily crop down shots without losing detail, like I did here with Mr. Shaun White.

Folks shooting in RAW will also notice the extra resolution with added RAW headroom (meaning, more detail can be salvaged in post-processing from highlights that would be blown out to flat white in a JPG). But on the other hand, a 21-megapixel RAW file from the 5D Mark II weighs in at around 30MB give or take, so unless you’re ready to buy a huge RAID drive to go along with it, the higher resolution may not be your choice in most situations. In all honesty, for 800-pixel-wide shots intended for Gizmodo pages, I never shot above the smallest JPG size, which is still a massive 2784×1856.

Advantage: Draw The D700 does slightly better at high ISO, but the 5D Mark II has a significant upper hand in resolution.

Shooting Features
Here’s one area where there is a definitive leader, and it’s the D700. Its Multi-Cam 3500 auto-focus processor has 51 AF points, compared the the 5D Mark II’s nine (it inherited the same autofocus system from the original 5D, which was itself a bit outdated). It is decidedly better at tracking moving objects with all of these focus points, and also tends to lock in to the correct focus considerably faster.

Even without shooting, it’s easy enough to spot the difference by looking through the viewfinders. The 5D Mark II’s focus points are concentrated mostly in the center of the frame in a diamond shape, whereas the D700’s central points cover far more ground, and zone points cover the outer areas of the frame. So with autofocus, this is cut and dry: Although the 5D Mark II’s AF is quite competent, the D700 wins if you frequently shoot fast-moving kids, animals (same thing?) or sports. The D700 does have a focus-assist lamp (the 5D Mark II doesn’t) to help get this level of detail in low-light, but you can shut it off.

As far as metering and image processing goes, I also lean toward the D700. As most Nikons do, the D700 tends to saturate colors more in its default settings (which of course can be changed). I’m a fan of this look, but that’s all about settings, which should most likely be done on the computer. So a toss-up there, for the most part.

More important is my completely unscientific but still notable feeling that the D700 tends to meter scenes with more skill than the 5D. Here the difference is subtle, but I feel like I had to hit the exposure compensation knob a bit more frequently on the Canon to keep it from blowing out highlights, where the D700 would expose the frame more naturally.

Here are some D700 shots that Matt and I took:

Advantage: D700

Interface/Handfeel/Menus
Here’s where the Nikon vs. Canon flames start to get intense—both cameras take a decidedly different approach to menus and basic shooting controls. For me, I like a dedicated button wherever possible, even if this means the body is littered with switches and knobs of all sorts. This is the Nikon approach, more or less; ISO, file size, white balance, autofocus point selection, metering mode and even mirror lock-up get their own dedicated switches on the D700, which makes switching all of these things easier. On the 5D Mark II, all of these major settings share a button—press it, then rotate the thumb wheel to change one setting, and the index-finger wheel on the front for the other. I almost never remember which dial changes which setting, so that can be annoying.

On the other hand, I am a huge fan of Canon’s jumbo thumb wheel in general—something no Nikon has. Being able to always change EV with the thumbwheel is huge, and in manual mode, you can’t beat having that big knob down there. It’s also great for quickly scrolling through your images. I also much prefer the traditional Canon shooting-mode selector wheel; on the Nikon, you have to press down a button and turn a wheel at the same time. But these all come down mostly to personal preference. And in the on-screen menus, again, preference: Canon tends to split their menus out into multiple screens with every option on the screen at once without scrolling, where Nikon gives you long scrolling lists. Canon did provide a nice quick-access menu to most major settings via the LCD, which is an improvement for them.

And even though the D700 is a good 300 grams heavier than the 5D Mark II with lens, it feels a bit more balanced (almost gyroscopic) in your hand, so that’s good, if you don’t mind the extra weight.

Advantage: D700 Another tough call, but I’m giving it to D700 by a nose for all the dedicated switches, even though I like several of Canon’s choices better.

Extras
Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: The 5D Mark II is the first DSLR in the world to shoot 1080p (30fps) HD video through its live view mode (see here for more on how this works). By now you’ve thoroughly ogled Vincent La Foret’s amazing demo film—let me tell you, nothing I shot can come close to that. But what even the least video-inclined person will find is that videos look absolutely incredible shot with the limited depth of field of an SLR lens feeding a big full-frame sensor.

There are some drawbacks though, which will ensure your HD camcorder still has some time left: Autofocus is non-existent. When you press the autofocus button during video capture—and that’s the only way to activate it—you’ll need to be prepared to edit out the part in your video where either the mirror slaps up to expose the AF sensor or the contrast detection system cranks the exposure way up (accompanied by the sound of your lens squeaking into position after a good 4 to 5 seconds of hunting). If you’re cool with that, then you’ll be OK, because the autofocus does work, after mangling your videos for a few seconds. Thankfully, manual focus works just fine. You can zoom in with the LCD to make sure you’ve nailed the focus, although this can be kind of tricky to juggle while twisting the focus ring and trying to keep the shot framed at the same time.

Another drawback is that, aside from shifting the EV exposure compensation, you can’t change exposure or ISO settings while you’re filming.

But for grabbing quick 90 to 120 second clips of relatively stationary subjects, or things far enough away to be covered by your infinity focus (like the snowboarders here), then you’re absolutely golden. Your clips, with their popped colors, low-light sensitivity and limited depth of field will be far more beautiful than anything spit out by a Flip video cam or, in some cases, your dedicated camcorder.

Here’s a quick montage of some stuff I shot around town:


On top of the video shooting, the 5D Mark II also comes with a better kit lens than the D700, a 24-105mm L-series that’s f/4 throughout the range. I would normally feel the constraints of f/4 pretty hard and long for my f/1.4 50mm, but with the 5D Mark II you almost don’t notice, when you factor in VR and the crazy-bananas low-light sensitivity. The D700 comes with a capable but not nearly as performance-centric 24-120 f/3.5-f/5.6 zoom.

Oh, and I almost forgot: The D700 has a built-in flash, and the 5D Mark II does not. Which is something I would only ever think of using as a fill in the day time. So that’s not that big of a deal for me, but it might be for you. Update: As many of you guys have pointed out, the D700 on-board flash can also be used to wirelessly trigger Nikon’s CLS compatible strobes. Cool feature.

Advantage: 5D Mark II Easy call there.

Conclusion
Today in the DSLR world, wedged somewhere in the middle of entry-level APS-C, semi-pro APS-C, pro APS-C and pro full-frame, we now have a nice semi-pro full-frame option to consider. The categories may be piling up, but we are so happy this new one came along. Now that getting a full-frame sensor doesn’t require going into hock to get the same body that photojournalists are taking to Iraq, we serious-but-still-recreational shooters can use these full-framers to get great shots at ISO settings so high it’s ridiculous to think about. And on the 5D Mark II, we can film 1080p video. Holy crap.

In the end, for me, I give the trophy to the 5D Mark II for the 1080p video. It’s got its drawbacks, sure, but being able to switch seamlessly from stills to beautiful movies with my awesome 35mm DSLR lens is just too good to be true. The D700 has an edge, albeit a slight one, in some categories like high ISO, but in the new world order, 1080p video from your DSLR is an ace that can’t be beat.

Things are even more clear cut when both cameras were selling for MSRP: Adding insult to injury after nearly matching Nikon in ISO sensitivity and adding 1080p video and almost double the resolution, Canon priced the 5D $300 lower than the D700 ($2700 vs $3000 for body-only). The D700’s been on the market a few months longer, though, and the prices are starting to come down—you can get the body for $2450 at B&H right now. With the 5D Mark II still backordered just about everywhere, this disparity will probably last for a while.

So for you it may be an interesting decision. The option to save a few hundred bucks and get a smidge less noise at high ISO is surely attractive. Either way, you’ve got an absolutely amazing camera. I would imagine most people considering a $2,000 to $3,000 body already have a lens or two of one of these two systems—so in the end, you may go with the one you already have glass for. If you’re a Nikon person, this may mean holding off on the D700 and waiting a while for 1080p.

We based this review on real-world experience, and we didn’t spend any time in a lab for testing. Consider supplementing our impressions here with the good work done by our friends at digitalcamerainfo,com (read their 5D Mark II review and their D700 review), as well as teh labcoated folks over at DPReview’s takes: here is their D700 review and their 5D Mark II review. And, while we focused here on Canon and Nikon, the Sony Alpha 900 is also a contender in this price range for a full-frame shooter, though in our experience, it doesn’t touch either of these two, especially in high-ISO performance.

No Comments | Tags: ,
Feb 18

Giz Explains: Why More Megapixels Isn’t Always More Better

Posted in: dslr, feature, nikon, olympus, sony, Today's Chili, top

Between all the new digital cameras pooped out before the upcoming PMA show and the crazy cameras buried inside cellphones at MWC, it’s a good time to go over why more megapixels isn’t necessarily better.

So, the nutshell explanation of how a digital camera works is that light lands on a sensor, which converts the light into electrical charges. Depending on the kind of camera you’re using, how the light reaches the sensor may seem different—honkin’ digital SLRs house a complicated pentaprism and mirror system that swings out of the way, while the inside of a compact point-and-shoot is mechanically far simpler. At the heart, though, the sensor fundamentals stay the same.

The sensor is where most of the megapixel machismo comes from. When you squeeze the shutter button, the sensor (like film in old-school cameras) is exposed to light for however long you have the exposure time set for. The most common metaphor to talk about how a sensor works is that it’s like an array of buckets (the pixels) that collect light, and the amount collected is turned into an electrical charge, which is converted into data. We talked a bit about the differences between the two major types of sensors, CCD and APS (CMOS) earlier.

Generally, the more pixels packed onto a sensor, the higher the resolution of the images it can produce. (Image resolution is somewhat confusingly also measured in pixels, but the term pixels doesn’t always refer to the exact same thing.) A megapixel is 1 million pixels, so a 12-megapixel photo has a resolution of about 12 million pixels. Sounds like a lot, till you consider gigapixel photos, which have over a billion pixels in them. By comparison, a 30-inch monitor with a 2560×1600 display resolution amounts to a measly four megapixels, and even the best high-definition video currently is around two megapixels, no matter how large the TV.

The most recent crop of $250ish point-and-shoot digital cameras from Canon and Nikon seem to establish 10-12 megapixels as the new norm for everyday pocket cams, and hell, Sony Ericsson crammed a 12-megapixel into their tiny Idou cellphone—the same as Canon’s entry-level XSi DSLR and Nikon’s $3000 D700 pro DSLR. Uh, what the hell?

Obviously, there’s a world of difference between the image quality you’re going to get out each of those. Most of it comes down to the size of the sensor and the pixels. You can fit a much bigger sensor inside of a DSLR than you can inside of a cellphone, which not only means you can fit more pixels on the sensor, you can fit much bigger ones—imagine bigger buckets to catch the light. Sure enough, the sensors inside of DSLRs are huge compared to the ones in compacts as DPReview’s detailed size chart shows. They also explain how to the read the sizes—which actually refer to the size of the tube around the sensor, not the sensor itself. Sensor sizes are referenced against 35mm film as a standard—cameras with sensors equivalent in size to 35mm film are called full-frame, though right now that’s limited to pricey semi-pro level DSLRs.

To get really high-resolution smaller cameras and phones, manufacturers pack as many teeny pixels as tightly as they can onto tiny sensors. The pixels in standard point-and-shoots aren’t the same kind of high-quality pixels found on DSLRs—and generally speaking, bargain bin cameras will offer lower quality pixels than higher-end shooters of the same class—which results crappier color accuracy and usually lower dynamic range too.

The other problem is noise. When you pack in pixels like delicious cows headed for slaughter, you create a lot of heat, which is one of the ways noise is generated—the rainbow colored random grain you see sometimes on digital photos. Noise gets worse as you crank the ISO, amplifying the sensor’s sensitivity to light. In newer point and shoots, it’s really noticeable around a sensitivity of ISO 800, though the D700 and 5D Mark II DSLRs can be jacked up to 3200 ISO and produce acceptable images (we’ve used some on Giz).

So, on a given sensor size, a lower megapixel count with bigger pixels will produce cleaner images—hence the D3 only rocking 12 megapixels. Most cameras mitigate noise with fancy noise reduction algorithms that are getting better all the time—Canon’s 5D Mark II manages to balance delivering 21 megapixels with images about as clean as the D700’s at higher ISOs—but for the most part, we’re happier to see bigger sensors and fewer pixels. One disadvantage of the bigger “buckets” in DSLRs is that you do need more light to fill them up, meaning you might need longer exposure times.

And when it comes to print quality—that old argument for extra megapixels—for most of the shooting the average person does, 6 megapixels is just fine, as David Pogue shows (and Ken Rockwell has more on), since you can make ginormous prints from it, and a clear, noise-free 8×10 looks better than a crappy one when its framed and hung on the wall. As Douglas Sterling told us via email, pros crave the extra detail of ginormous megapixel images, but when it comes down to buying cameras for regular people, just keep in mind that more megapixels isn’t necessarily more better. It’s how good those pixels are that matters.

Something you still wanna know? Send any questions about cameras, obscuras, or Waffle House to tips@gizmodo.com, with “Giz Explains” in the subject line.

No Comments | Tags: , , , ,
Feb 13

A Tribute to Creepy Guys Taking Pictures of Pretty Girls (NSFW)

Posted in: photography, Today's Chili, top

Today we celebrate the unsung hero of the trade show, the creepy guy who stops at nothing to acquire the perfect shot of a girl who probably hates him.

The creepy SLR guy always carries a camera—often two or more—and uses amatuer cosplayers and paid models alike as some part of a bizarre mating ritual involving using a zoom lens (his not so indiscreet phallus) from three feet away.

So from now on, every time you browse some shady forum looking at a girl dressed up as a Final Fantasy character while showing a tad too much cleavage, know that this is how it really happened. Her legs aren’t glistening in the light; they’re covered in second hand sweat and geek pheromones. And a single hot shower can’t undo that viscous coating. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

A special thanks to Erica Ho for trudging through some truly nasty waters to acquire these shots.

No Comments | Tags: ,
Jan 30

US Soldier Explains Why He Uses a Rifle Stock to Shoot Photographs

Posted in: dslr, Today's Chili, top

When we recently posted a Vietnam-era Bolex camera with a rifle stock attached, we thought the concept was a little nuts. Then Army Reserve Staff Sgt. and wartime photographer Jeffrey Duran set us straight.

In our original post, we speculated that using a gun stock for shooting a camera seemed like a good way for a photographer to get shot. And we wondered how common these stocks could be. Duran wrote back with a short, informed response, but I was able to twist his arm into telling us a bit more.

Pointing a long lens mounted on a stock is indeed a recipe for getting shot if you’re not careful. In fact in training at Fort McCoy, Wi., I was “shot” by Soldiers on practice missions.

I was not where they expected me to be… i.e. mixed in with the opposition who happened to be shooting at them at the time. Thus, I was “shot” at with blanks during the training even though I was in uniform. They *saw* what they assumed was a rifle in an area where bad guys were shooting at them..

This, of course, is why we train. Even as military media, we need to train in realistic conditions. It was a learning event for both myself and the Soldiers in training.

At Kajaki Dam in Afghanistan, I was there to get some on the ground coverage for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the Afghan National Army. The Afghan National Army troops there are “spot on” as the Brits say and the dam has great strategic importance. There are lots of bad guys.
I took my Bushhawk stock along for the ride out to Kajaki. The stock is of limited use as in remote regions such as this, the local population has never seen a DSLR so they limited trust when you’re pointing a long lens at them. In operations where we were going patrols or at night with night vision I’d use it a lot. However, when going where the bad guys are, there is little worry as I was with some of the best Soldiers in the world.

Okay, so why risk losing your life. Good question. Lemme see if I can figure it out.

Ok. It is an extremely stable platform to shoot pictures with (i.e. that’s why rifles are designed that way). It is very natural and comfortable which results in good images. When using long lenses, holding the camera steady is damn important.

Plus, you can sling the camera stock while walking. This is very important when trying to keep up with Soldiers that are in *much* better shape than you (lost 20 pounds during the tour). Although I’m a Reservist, there’s only one standard… so I have the keep up with Olympic-grade athletes when on Active duty.

Monopods work very well but are a pain in the ass when on the move. You have to open them, then close them when you’re going to roll out. Which happens unexpectedly at times 🙂

Handholding with two hands is about the only way and how most of the world gets it done. I would not advise *any* media in a war zone to use a stock. In my case, I’m a member of the armed forces and I’m with the guys with the guns. We used to joke about it in that the Taliban would wonder if we bought some some secret weapon since we were the only Americans at Kajaki. Either way, the bad guys would shoot at me anyway on any patrols with little regard if I had a camera or a rifle.

My main thing was not to make the local population feel threatened…
I have to say that there is something inherently fun about shooting a camera like a rifle. It is really more fun than I should admit. I found myself grinning every time I used the darn thing.

I guess there’s just something obsessive with me and rifle stocks for cameras. I actually designed one in drafting class in high-school but it wasn’t until this last tour that I ponied up the cheese to buy one. It’s just a lot of fun.

– Jeff Duran

or Staff Sgt. Jeffrey Duran one weekend a month, two weeks a year (unless called to go to far away places and meet new people… and take their picture).

A special thanks to Staff Sgt. Jeffrey Duran for writing in and sharing his experiences. You can see more of his photos here and here.

No Comments | Tags: , , ,
Jan 30

Fetish: 50 Mirror Self Portraits with Cameras In Sight

Posted in: dslr, Today's Chili, top

Whoa, what camera is that?

One of my favorite photograph sub-genres is the mirror self portrait, with camera in sight. I suppose I have a fetish for these shots. These are the best I could find. I saw one like this on an aggregation site popurls.com. And followed the link to Flickr.

Then I found a few more and before I knew it, I found a group called Self Portraits in Mirrors and eventually ended up with 50 of these shots. And that’s when I realized I was obsessing over them. I don’t know why they’re interesting to me. Perhaps it’s the contrast between man and machine. And the expressions, they’re generally candid and, no pun intended, reflective, with no one else around; not even another photographer. Just the gaze of a sensor through a fine piece of focusing glass. Some of the shots go a step further, TTL viewfinder to the eye, giving the subject a cyborg look, the bio-mimed curves, faux leather and lens somehow matching the human facial structure and eyes. Plus, they look beautiful.

My favorite of the bunch are from a series from a Flickr user named Chile, shot for Anastasia Volkova Photography.

Which of these are your favorite?

[In no particular order, photography credit and thanks to chiie, julianne.hide, hamedmasoumi, demibrooke, etwood, pinkspleen, multiget, tacoekkel, paranoicafierita, stallio, dc-white, cesarastudillo, einfachalex, okko pyykkö, vanguardist, elanacxliv, okko pyykkö, kennymatic, r.s.m.b.Sees, james the photographer,
meg rorison, jovivek, voxefx, pmarkham, melissa rudik, lucas de vries,
sarchi, ingorrr, melissa rudik, -amy-, ooOjasonOoo, beard papa, , ooOJasonOoo, josh holmes, kooshan jazayeri, starry eyed ali, johannarudd, th nuzi, twak, morvai, fledsbo, skiidolley, androgynousectomor, john zhang, mrok1970, teezilla, chocolate candy, chiie, mafafamisguito, chiie 2, chiie 3, mtgroseth, sarcomical, moonjadis, special thanks to Andi Wang for collating the images.]

No Comments | Tags: , , ,
Jan 01

Dealzmodo Hack: Outfit Your Camera Like a Pro (Hobo)

Posted in: diy, dslr, feature, Hacks, lenses, photography, point and shoot, Today's Chili, top

Whether your camera is brand new or an aging holdover, you want to accessorize it, but you don’t want to pay. By now, you know the Dealzmodo Hack drill: Paying is for suckers.

For decades, photographers have engineered little tricks to get the most out of their cameras, and most of them have carried just fine over the digital divide. Here are a few, with some newer additions collected by our friends at Lifehacker.

Build your own stabilizer out of string
Shooting long exposures without something to prop your camera on is a pain in the ass, not to mention a blurry mess. So is carrying a tripod. This video shows how to build a pretty effective foot-looping camera stabilizer out of some string, a bolt and a washer. The results are surprisingly good.

Build your own L-bracket, for serious stability, vertical mounting
If you’re doing portrait photography, or have a dumpy old tripod that can’t accommodate vertically oriented cameras, you can build a sturdy L-bracket for about $30. It’s a bit more involved than the piece-o-string stabilizer, but it’s also a lot better, and much cheaper than something you’d pick up at Wolf.

The “David Pogue Special”: Use a lamp as a tripod
To round out the camera-steadying tools, here’s what I call the David Pogue Special, and it’s great: Many lampshade mounts share a diameter and thread size with the tripod mount screw on the bottom of your camcorder, point-and-shoot or DSLR, providing quick and dirty stabilization in a bind.

Scrounge up household flash diffusers
Shooting with flash indoors is often necessary, but can wash out your subjects, making them look sheet-white, greasy and demon-eyed. With a diffuser, the light is softened and the photos are dramatically improved. Commercial flash hoods and diffusers cost money, but aren’t much more effective than what you can make yourself. A coffee filter held in front of a flash, a translucent film canister with a notch cut into it, a simple piece of A4 paper or even a piece of matte Scotch tape over the flash lens will measurably improve your drunk party photography.

Calibrate color temperature with free flooring samples
Shooting a piece of paper, gray notecard or painted wall can give you OK white balance calibration, but this guy has a better idea: snag some free floor laminate samples and built a proper calibration board.

Make flash deflection umbrellas from actual umbrellas
If you really want to go pro-hobo, you can repurpose old umbrellas into flash-directing photography umbrellas. After all, there are always plenty lying around. Here’s how you do it. If you’re feeling lazy, you can even get away with just an old sheet and some tape.

Build still-life photography studio for free(ish)
Ever wonder how that creepy old photographer got such a soft, vivid, dreamy picture of you and your prom date all those years ago? This is how. The project doesn’t call for much more than large pieces of paper and tape—relying on indirect sunlight for the adequate lighting—but the results are impressive. It is just a small-scale testbed though, so you’ll be limited to shooting Lego models, action figures and the like, but what else were you going to shoot anyway?

Snap magazine-style portraits, beautiful macros with a homemade ringlight
Flickr user jedrek has written out a detailed how-to guide for converting your external flash into a ringlighting rig, mostly using kitchen wares. If you’ve never heard of ringlighting, have a look at this. The technique is usually reserved for professional photographers, because real ringflashes are comically expensive. This one costs a few bucks.

Foam-fit an old bag to hold your gear
If you’re packing a DSLR with lenses and accessories, carrying a full-fledged camera bag is usually ideal, but they’re expensive and tend to draw attention to your cargo. With some foam, cardboard and a ratty old military-surplus bag, you can put together a stylish, stealthy and highly-functional camera bag that won’t make you feel like a snap-happy father of four.

Top image of proto-pro-photo-hobo Miroslav Tichy.

Dealzmodo Hacks are intended to help you sustain your crippling gadget addiction through tighter times. If you come across any on your own that are particularly useful, send it to our tips line (Subject: Dealzmodo Hack). Check back every other Thursday for free DIY tricks to breathe new life into hardware that you already own.

No Comments | Tags: , , , , ,