A few weeks ago, I ordered a Canon 200EG Camera Backpack. I’ll be writing up a full review of the backpack after I’ve had it for a few weeks. Although it’s definitely not better on every point, I can already tell that I like it better than the old camera bag. Here are a few direct comparisons to help you figure out which is the best camera bag for you…

Capacity – How Much Does It Hold?

I was able to put everything that had been in my old Canon 200DG into my new Canon 200EG backpack. They’re fairly comparable when it comes to capacity. My backpack is currently holding: a Canon t1i body, a Canon 18-55mm lens, a Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens, a Canon 430 EX II speedlite, a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, a set of radio triggers, about a dozen extra AA batteries, two extra camera batteries, and the camera battery charger. There are a few other random accessories, too…

It’s a pretty packed bag. The Sigma lens takes up a lot of room. In fact, the items fit better in the backpack than in the traditional bag. Before, I had to lay the flash down on top of the Sigma lens. Now, everything lies flat in the backpack and nothing is stacked on anything else.

One thing I do prefer on the old camera bag is that the side pouches were much larger. The side pouches on the Canon 200EG backpack are fairly small, and they won’t hold much. There’s also no big front pouch like there is on the Canon 200DG bag. Overall, I’d say there’s a pretty comparable amount of space, and the 200EG backpack puts more of the space in the main compartment while the 200DG puts more space into extra compartments on the sides of the bags.

Comfort

This is one reason I wanted to get a new bag. The old Canon 200DG bag is not very comfortable. It has a single shoulder strap, and when the bag is heavy there’s no comfortable way to hold it. It’s too bulky to rest on your hip, and it doesn’t really shape well to fit against your back. I used to kind of rest it on the front of my hip to help support the weight that way.

The Canon 200EG is a big improvement in this area. The two shoulder straps help distribute the weight more evenly, and I feel comfortable walking around with the backpack on. It’s not digging into one shoulder and straining my back. I think the shoulder straps are a little short, and the backpack rides a bit high… but this might vary per person. It may not be perfectly ergonomic, but it’s definitely better than the old bag.

Durability

In the long run, I’ll have to see how the backpack holds up… but I’m going to lean towards the backpack on this one. I had two problems with the old Canon 200DG bag. First, the bottom began to fray, and right now it looks like it’s going to start ripping open some holes. Second, and more importantly, the plastic clip that resizes the shoulder strap developed a slight crack and over time it will eventually break completely.

I don’t know how the material of the backpack will hold up, but I assume the strap will hold up better. There are plastic resizing clips on the shoulder straps, but they don’t really bear any weight. My biggest concern is whether or not the shoulder straps themselves will stay attached to the back of the bag (I briefly had a sling-style backpack where the strap began tearing off the top of the backpack). However, I’m going to assume, due to the even distribution of weight, that the straps will hold up just fine.

Convenience

The one thing that I do like more about the old Canon 200DG bag is the convenience of getting into it. I could swing it around to my front, keep the bag over my shoulder, and open the top of the bag to get something out. This made it quick and simple to assemble/disassemble the camera, especially if I was just handing the parts to someone else who would actually be taking pictures.

With the Canon 200EG backpack, I need to find a place to lay the backpack down. Then, I have to unzip the whole bag and life the top off. It would be next to impossible to do this while still wearing the backpack, even if I were to flip it around and wear it on my front.

Major problem? Probably not… but minor nuisance, sure.

Bottom Line

For me, the Canon 200EG backpack turned out to be a great choice for a camera bag.

It’s large enough to store all the crap that I use on a regular basis, and it’s lightweight and portable. This bag is big enough for most portable gear kits, assuming you’re only taking the stuff that you’re likely to use, and it’s comfortable enough to wear around a football sideline for a few hours.

It is not big enough to hold your camera gear and a three flash lighting kit. It is not an extra-durable, indestructible bag that you would use if you were checking your camera gear as luggage.

Something else to keep in mind is that Amazon offers it’s own “Amazon Basics” backpack that seems almost identical. It’s a little bit cheaper ($32.99 at the moment, while the Canon backpack is a tad under $40). One difference also seems to be that the Amazon bag is the same depth from top to bottom, while the Canon backpack tapers slightly. This makes the Canon bag look nicer, but it does make it more problematic to use the very top of the storage space.

Some initial thoughts, and then more details after the jump. It’s cheap ($80, $0.27/print). Image quality is good. It’s small and portable. Only thing I don’t like is that you have to rip some perforated edges off the end of the paper.

Price. The printer retails for $100, but it’s available on Amazon for $80, and that includes free shipping. The bigger concern was the cost of supplies – how much was each print going to cost? With an inkjet printer, this can be a bit unpredictable – the paper is cheap (around $0.10 for a piece of 4×6 photo paper), but you’re never sure how much ink you’re going to go through. And if you’re tempted to get remanufactured ink tanks (to bring the cost down), you run the risk of reducing the quality.

Dye sub printers, like the Selphy, don’t use ink. Instead, they use colored ribbon to transfer colors to the paper. Your costs are entirely predictable – a 108 print set includes enough ribbons and paper to print 108 photos. For the Selphy, the paper refills come in packs of 36 prints or 108 prints. You can find the 108 print kit on Amazon for $28, and at BH Photo Video for $29. I usually buy stuff from Amazon, but they were temporarily out of stock so I ordered mine from B&H. Either way, that’s about $0.26 to $0.28 per print. [Addendum: I've since looked at the costs of some other printers, and I have yet to find a printer with a price tag under $700 that has lower per print supply costs.]

I read in some reviews that people didn’t like the “high cost” of this printer (or similar). Well gee, how cheap do you expect it to be? Costco is $0.15 per print, and they do things as efficiently as possible. I wouldn’t expect a small, consumer printer to be as or more efficient. I wouldn’t print big batches of pictures at home on my Selphy, but the extra 10 to 15 cents per picture is well worth the convenience of printing things immediately and anywhere. I don’t always have the time to wait a couple hours and travel to Costco to pick up prints. $1.00/print would be excessive, $0.50/print would be pushing it, but I think $0.26 to $0.28/print is quite reasonable.

Quality. I was shocked at the quality this thing put out. Colors were saturated. The paper had a nice glossy finish. It looked much better than prints I’ve made on inkjet printers at home, and was on par with the type of prints I’d expect to get from Costco. The paper and finish wasn’t quite as good as the higher quality prints you can get at MPix Pro or another professional quality print lab. But, I didn’t expect that.

I did have one issue on the first image I printed. There was a solid red dot in one part of the image, and a thin red line on another. I’m guessing there was damage to the ink ribbon or, less likely, to the paper. The other sample prints I made had no problems. The printer did a good job of printing borderless, and covering the entire photo paper from edge to edge.

The one thing I don’t like is that the paper includes two perforated edges. The printer passes the photo paper under the ribbon a series of times, and it uses these end pieces (about a quarter of an inch long) to grip the paper and make sure it’s covered border to border. The perforation works well and the edges rip off easily, but the edge is left looking distinctly white (not the top of the photograph, but on the edge of the paper). I’m still not sure how much this matters to me… but it did annoy me at first.

Portability. This is supposed to be a compact, portable photo printer. So how compact is it? It is pretty small – about the size of a really thick book. It sits nicely on the desk next to the computer. Be warned that the tray does stick out from the printer a full 4 x 6 inches, so it is larger than the footprint of the printer itself. However, it’s much smaller than a typical printer that handles full-size paper.

The one downside is that the optional battery pack is as expensive as the printer itself. It costs $80 on Amazon. Yikes. I personally didn’t want the battery pack, but this could be a negative for anyone who wants an ultra portable printer. $80 for the printer is pretty cheap, but once you add in a battery and jump up to $160 you’re talking about small but significant investment.

Print Speed. It’s advertised at about 45 seconds per print. I didn’t sit there and time it, but I’d say somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 45 seconds to print the picture is accurate. This, combined with the fact that you need to change the paper/ink every 36 prints, would make it hard to set up a large batch of prints. But for printing a few photos, a handful at a time, the speed is just fine for me.

Random problems. I read in a review (on Amazon, I think) that the reviewer was surprised it didn’t come with a USB cord. Sure enough, I opened the box and it did not include a USB cable. This isn’t a big deal for me. Over the years, I’ve collected a ton of useless cables and crap. If you don’t have one, they’re easy to come by – a 6 ft USB cable is about $4 on Amazon. It would, however, be annoying if you ordered the printer, didn’t have a cable, and found out you needed one.

Final Thoughts. I bought this printer expecting it to be cheap, portable, and high quality. On all three counts, I was thoroughly impressed. It’s cheap ($80), and the supply costs are reasonable and predictable. It’s small and lightweight, and I could easily pack it up and carry it with my camera and/or laptop. In fact, if I re-arranged my camera bag and dropped some lenses, I could probably fit it in there. Finally, the quality is good, similar to what I’d expect if I’d printed the pictures at Costco.

If you’re looking for something similar, then I definitely recommend the Canon SELPHY CP800 Black Compact Photo Printer.

First, it allows you to put two batteries in the camera at the same time, effectively doubling the length of time between changing batteries. By doing this, I’ve never had to worry about changing batteries in the middle of an event or game.

Second, it gives you a second shutter release button. If you’re taking a picture in a portrait orientation (vertical), it can be really awkward to curl your hand around the lens and press the regular shutter release button. There’s a second shutter release button on the corner of the battery grip, so that when you rotate the camera to take a vertically oriented picture the button will be in the regular location.

The question, then, is what battery grip do you want to get. You could invest in an expensive, OEM option, or you could buy a cheap, third party option. Here are some thoughts on three options for the Canon t1i. Similar options are available for the Canon t2i and Canon t3i, and probably for entry level Nikon cameras as well.

OEM Canon Battery Grip. One option is to get the OEM Canon BG-E5 Battery Grip. I’ve never actually used one, because of the biggest con attached with this accessory: the price. This battery grip is $150 at Amazon. Yikes. Seems like a lot for an accessory that goes with a (originally) $6-700 body. I would assume, however, that the grip is more durable than cheaper, third party accessories.

If you’re into owning all OEM stuff, then spring for this. However, I don’t know that it’s such a good idea. If I was spending a ton of money on a Canon 7D or a Canon 5D Mk II, I’d probably spring for an authentic Canon grip. For a cheaper camera, like a t1i, t2i, or t3i, I’ll pass.

Opteka Battery Grip. Another, cheaper, option is the Opteka Battery Grip. It’s currently listed on Amazon for $45, and you can get it bundled with extra replacement batteries. Now that’s a price I can deal with.

This is the battery grip that I originally got for my own Canon t1i. At first, I was quite happy with it. However, it has proven to be a little less durable than I’d hoped. About a year into using it, I accidentally bumped the grip against something (I think a railing at a track meeting). This made a tiny hairline crack near the extra shutter release button. Before long, the button had fallen out. Doh!

The grip still works fine for its main purpose (using two batteries), but I could no longer use it as a vertical shutter. In the second year, the rubberized grip has started to peal away as well. It looks nice, and it feels like a good piece of equipment, but it hasn’t stood up to the abuse of everyday use.

Third Party Battery Grip. After my Opteka grip started to deteriorate, I looked for an alternative. I found this third party battery grip on eBay, and I realized it’s also listed on Amazon. Price? $20, $25 with shipping. Now that is definitely something I can work with.

I haven’t used it all that much, since I don’t shoot as much over the summer, but it’s worked well so far. I’ve noticed two differences between it and the Opteka grip. It doesn’t have a rubberized grip; the texture is built into the grip. This solves one of the longevity problems of the Opteka grip (having the rubber peel off). The batteries also go into the grip differently. In the Opteka grip, there’s a cartridge that comes out of the end, you place the two batteries in the cartridge, and slide it back in. With this third party grip, there’s a battery door that opens on the long edge, and you just slide them in. Minor difference, but it does make changing the batteries slightly quicker.

Even if it only lasts a year or two, I could buy six of these battery grips for the cost of one Canon grip. I doubt I’ll have this t1i for 12 years… so I’d say this is a fine investment. It works and it does it’s job, so this would be my suggestion if you don’t feel the need to buy original Canon accessories.

I had a smaller, off-brand camera bag, and it just didn’t hold up. The Canon 200DG wasn’t quite as durable as I’d hoped, but it is certainly sizeable. Here’s a quick run-down of my experience with the Canon 200DG bag.

Size and Capacity

There’s no doubt that the bag has a great capacity. It should be able to hold enough gear for most camera enthusiasts and some professionals.

Typically, my bag is holding: 1 body (Canon t1i w/ battery grip), 1 flash (Canon 430EX II), 1 large lens (Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8), and 2 small lenses (Canon 18-55 kit lens and Canon EF 85mm f/1.8). Before I lent it to my daughter to use in her college photography kit, I also kept a Nifty Fifty in there.

The inside of the bag comes with a number of movable walls that attach with velcro. I was able to compartmentalize the entire bag to protect all those contents quite well. Everything fits in there snug as a bug, but the inside is certainly full to capacity.

There are also two large side pouches (which I often use to hold extra double AA batteries) and a large front pouch (holds camera batteries, battery charger, and memory card wallet).

The only reason you might find this bag a bit small is if you carry a second body with you as a back-up. You could certainly fit a second body, but that would restrict you to 2 bodies, 1 flash, and one or two small lenses.

Durability

This is one part of the Canon 200DG bag that I wasn’t entirely impressed with. I’ve used it for almost two years now (November 2009 to Present), and the bag is still intact.

The bottom of the bag is quite scuffed up from use, and there are several places where the fabric is starting to fray apart. There are several layers of material, so nothing has worn all the way through… but it’s clearly getting worn.

The part that concerns me the most is the shoulder strap. It has a typical piece of plastic that allows you to change the length of the shoulder strap. After about a year, that plastic piece cracked, most likely from the excessive weight that we were lugging around. It didn’t break completely, and it still holds the shoulder strap on, but I am a little concerned that one day it will give out. I’ve been looking for a replacement shoulder strap to fix the problem.

Other than that, the bag is well-built. The top half of the bag clips are metal, and the shoulder strap attaches to the sides of the bag with metal bits. I’m fairly certain that the bag will stand up to normal use, but my bag has been full to capacity and used daily for going on two years.

Comfort

This one is kind of a toss-up. The shoulder strap is comfortable, and it is well padded. It is fairly comfortable to walk with the bag in front of me, resting on the front of my hip. Turning the bag and resting it on my back is somewhat less comfortable.

This is one area where I would prefer a sling type of bag. I had one (a topic for another review), and the sling was much better at holding the heavy weight against my body and making it more comfortable.

I’d put this bag in the middle of the road as comfort goes.

Bottom Line

The bag holds a lot of stuff. No doubt about. That’s a great selling point, and this bag is as good as any other bag you can throw over your shoulder in that respect.

Durability is somewhat questionable. The bottom of the bag can wear out over several years, and there are some plastic pieces (although few) that could end up breaking.

Comfort is a toss-up. It’s not bad, but it’s not great.

You can snag a Canon 200DG Camera Bag for under $50 on Amazon and slightly less on eBay. Reasonable price for a nice product. However, if I can’t figure out a replacement for that shoulder strap problem I may be going for a backback style bag in the future, like a Canon 200EG Camera Backpack. If anyone has experience with both, I’d appreciate some insights in the comment section.

All of the pictures in this post were taken backstage with the XT, documenting the prep work involved in the fashion show. Even though the XT  is only an 8 megapixel camera (about half the resolution of my t1i) and despite the fact that it was released 6 years ago, it performed quite nice.

The Set Up

The fashion show was a pretty busy night. We had a two-fold task: work out in the auditorium and cover the actual show and work back stage and cover the preparations. That pretty much necessitated two photographers and at least two camera bodies.

I stayed out in the auditorium working the show, and Olinda went backstage with the XT. She also had a Canon Speedlite 430EX II, which was pretty necessary for the poor lighting backstage. That let her work with a relatively low ISO (400), and a standard indoor exposure (f/5.6 and 1/30).

The result was that the pictures came out pretty good. She didn’t have to worry about using a high ISO setting, which I did out in the auditorium (I was shooting at ISO 3200 all night).

The pictures came out especially nice in the backstage hallways. Thanks to the low ceilings, the flash could be pointed straight up and bounced off the ceiling to light up the whole hallway. Out in the stage area, everything was covered with black curtains… and bouncing wasn’t so helpful.

Before doing this, I don’t know that I’ve  have been as satisfied with pictures taken on such an old camera. But, I must say I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of images the XT produced and I’ll probably end up picking up an older camera body at some point to keep around as an extra. You never know when you’re going to need to be in two places at once or use two lenses at once.

Now, with the addition of two new flashes to the line up (Canon 270 EX II Speedlite and the Canon 320 EX Speedlite) and my temporary acquisition of an old used flash (Canon 380 EX Speedlite), the question seems even more tough to answer: what’s the best speedlite to own?

Are the newer additions as good as the old 430? Does the 580 EX II justify the cost? Or should we just go with an old used flash like the 380? Here are some thoughts on the issue to help you decide.

Guide Number. Here’s something I never thought about but should have: the guide number of the flash. In other words, how much power it packs. Typically, more power is better, right…? Well, with flashes that’s true too.

Now you don’t always need a lot of power. If you’re pointing a flash directly at someone and you’re in a fairly well lit room, you just need a touch of power to light them up. A full manual blast from a 580 EX II will turn them into a pasty white ghost.

If, on the other hand, you’re in the middle of a banquet hall and you’re bouncing the flash off the ceiling to get some nice diffuse light… you’ll need that big punch.

The guide number of a flash tells you how far it can reach at 100 ISO. The technical definition isn’t so important, but it gives a relative measuring stick that you can  use to compare flashes. My original flash, a Canon 430 EX II, is about strong enough for most occasions, but I do sometimes wish it was a titch stronger. We’ll use that as a starting point… with it’s guide number of 43 (43 meters at 100 ISO).

How do the other speedlites stack up? Well, the entry level flashes (i.e. the 270 or the new 270 EX II) have a measly 27. A 580 EX II is a whopping 58. The new 320, which is supposed to replace the 430 EX II, has a guide number of 32. Frown. Meanwhile the 380 that I picked up as part of an auction lot on eBay has a guide number of 38.

In terms of exposure, that means that a full blast of a Canon 580 EX II will provide about one extra stop of light over a Canon 430 EX II, and that will provide about an extra stop of light over the puny little 270 EX II. Considering I often find that the 430 EX II strains to light a large room for an aperture of f/5.6 (which I often use since that’s the maximum for my 18-55 lens when it’s zoomed it), I couldn’t imagine using a 270 EX II in bounce situations.

If you’re going to use the flash in a conventional way (i.e. point it at your subject), then the 270 EX II should give you enough light. If you want to get creative and start bouncing things, then I wouldn’t go for anything less than the 430 EX II (or maybe the 380 if you want to pick up a used flash on the cheap). If you’ve got a better inside lens than me (like, say, a Canon f/2.8 24-70mm), then the 430 EX II is plenty of power and the extra oomph the 580 EX II provides is optional.

Of course, more maximum power does mean that you can use the flash at a lower setting… and keep the batteries alive longer. So there’s always a reason to get that 580 EX II.

Flash System

Another thing to think about is how you can  use the flash as part of a system. If you’re not going to take your flash off the camera and combine it with other flashes to light up a scene… then you don’t need to worry about this. Strobists, on the other hand, do.

Now you could go the pure Strobist route and manually control everything. In which case, the 430 EX II provides enough power and control for my tastes. You could do a lot with three of those. Neither the 270, 270 EX II, 320, nor the 380 have manual controls on the flash. That means that as a Strobist with some wireless triggers, you are 100% SOL.

On the other hand, you can choose to go with Canon’s wireless system. This means you’ll need either a new camera (like a Canon EOS Rebel t3i or a Canon EOS 60D), a 580 EX II, or Canon ST-E2 Speedlite Transmitter to act as a master and control your system. Personally, I think that’s a complete waste of the cost/power of a 580 EX II, so I’ll never do that. The ST-E2 transmitter costs as much as a pair of pocket wizards, so I’m not going to do that either. I might, however, upgrade to a t3i or a 60D, and then the pop-up flash can be used to trigger the Canon flash system.

Then, you need to think about slaves. The 430 EX II works fine here. The 580 EX II does as well. The new Canon 320 will operate within the Canon wireless flash system, so this is one place where it does effectively work as a replacement for the 430 EX II. The 270 EX II can work with the system too, although I read somewhere that it won’t work if you assign flashes to different channels. An older flash, like the 380, is plumb no good here.

The Bottom Line…

There are a bunch of other options to think about, so don’t take this as an absolute rule. But here are some final thoughts and rules of thumb…

The Canon 380 EX Speedlite is only available through used channels (i.e. eBay). But you know what? It rotates up and down, it uses e-TTL, and it packs more punch than both of the new Canon speedlite options. You can probably pick one up for less than $100, well under the price of a newer, fancier, and weaker flash… so people un-interested in off camera flash might be best served with this oldy but goody.

The Canon 270 EX II Speedlite is a weak, cheap flash. It’s fine if you’re working in well lit areas or pointing a flash in someone’s face. It won’t do well lighting a big area off the ceiling. You can’t program it manually for off camera use, and it’s of limited use within the Canon wireless system. For all but the most basic beginners, I’d skip this one.

The Canon 320 EX Speedlite is a little more powerful, but I’m disappointed that the “replacement” for the 430 EX II has significantly less light output. Bleh. No manual controls, either… And it still costs $249.99? I just don’t get this. The 430 EX II seems better than this in almost every conceivable way, and I don’t know why someone would choose this (other than the fact that they’ll probably discontinue the 430 EX II once the 320 is in full production).

I love my Canon 430 EX II Speedlite. You’ll find them used on eBay for $2-250, and you can still buy them new for a shade under $300. It’s powerful enough to light up a room on its own (I combined it with an f/1.8 lens to light up an otherwise dismally lit banquet hall with really high ceilings at last year’s prom), and you can program it from the back for off-camera flash using wireless triggers.

The Canon 580 EX II. Don’t get me wrong. But it’s also expensive. If you can afford it, go for it. However I don’t think it’s necessary unless you’re a true professional investing in the highest quality gear available. Hobbyists and semi-professionals can get by with a 430 EX II just fine.

It’s been about a year and a half since I purchased my Canon EOS Rebel T1i. In the meantime, Canon has put out not one but two upgrades… the Canon EOS Rebel T2i has been available for a while now, and the Canon EOS Rebel T3i was just released about two weeks ago.

So what are the differences between the three? If you’re comparing the Canon t1i vs t2i vs t3i, what should you be looking for…?

Price

First, let’s see how they stack up price-wise. The Canon t1i isn’t available new from the factory, but you’ll still find some floating around.  Amazon lists it at $529, a little cheaper than where it started two years ago. Amazon is currently selling the t2i for $677, and the t3i is listed at a full retail price of $799.99.

If you’re willing to dive into the used camera market, you might find some better prices on the Canon t1i’s and Canon t2i’s. A used Canon t1i body is selling on eBay for something in the neighborhood of $400 to $450. Canon t2i’s are selling used for somewhere in the neighborhood of $650, so not a great deal; but that might change if more people start to upgrade to the t3i.

Resolution

Here’s one reason to upgrade to a Canon t2i or Canon t3i from a Canon t1i: resolution.  The t1i boasts 15.1 megapixels, which is not too shabby at all. I haven’t upgraded yet (although I plan on doing so relatively soon), and those 15.1 megapixels are enough for most purposes. I’ve made 36 inch poster prints from my football shots, and I haven’t noticed any problems stemming from resolution.

However, the Canon t2i was a clear upgrade in terms of resolution. It jumped from 15.1MP to 18MP – about 20%. Is it necessary? Probably not. Is it better? Sure. The Canon t3i still has 18 megapixels, so no upgrade there.

Despite the resolution shift, all three cameras have the same sensor… so no difference there.

Flash Control

Here’s the one reason I’d consider choosing a Canon t3i over a Canon t2i: flash control. Currently, in order to use my flashes off camera, I need to use some wireless radio triggers. If I wanted to use Canon’s built-in wireless system, I would need to either buy a (not-so-cheap) Canon Speedlite 580EX II or a Canon ST-E2 Speedlite Transmitter. Both of these products work as a master commander for Canon’s wireless system, and you can use it to control multiple Canon flashes from in camera.

The Canon t3i introduces a built-in pop-up master flash, a feature that was definitely lacking in previous models. Now, you can control Canon flashes with just the built-in pop-up flash. Of course, this also means that I’ll need to buy all Canon flashes (I currently mix a Canon flash with some Vivitar 285s for my off-camera lighting). Oh well… more money to spend. Still, for the Canon t2i vs t3i, this is a clear advantage for the Canon t3i.

Video

I don’t use my Canon t1i much for video, but I have in the past… and it’s pretty cool. Focusing and adjusting the light mid scene is a pain, but it definitely makes some high quality video. This is where you’ll see some new changes.

The Canon t2i presents an improvement over the t1i in terms of video quality and frame rate. If you’re shooting in 1080P, the Canon t1i has a frame rate of 20fps. Meanwhile, the Canon t2i (and the t3i) boast full frame rates of 24 and 30 at 1080P.

The Canon t2i also introduced an audio jack that you could plug an external microphone into. If you’re trying to make a real video and not just a home movie, this is pretty key. The built in microphone is ok, but it’s nothing special.

The Canon t3i also introduces a new twist: an articulated LCD screen. Nikon put this in the mix a while ago, and Canon is kind of playing catch up… except for the fact that it rarely matters. I have never used the LCD screen to preview/compose an image since I dumped my old Nikon Coolpix P80 for a real dSLR. However, the articulated screen does have a use for video people. If you’re shooting video you’re looking through the LCD screen anyway… so it’s nice that it moves around.

So… What to Buy?

Depends on what you’re doing.

Looking for a good quality, cheap, entry level dSLR? Try scooping up a used Canon t1i on eBay for $400. I still love my t1i, and that’s half the price tag of a new Canon t3i. In the last year, the price of a new Canon t2i has dropped, and if you’re buying a new camera… there’s almost no price difference between the Canon t2i and the Canon t1i. So just get the newer camera. Looking at the Canon t2i vs t3i, however, there’s still a decent price jump. So only upgrade if you need to.

Do you do video with your digital camera? If so, consider the t2i or the t3i. The external microphone and better video quality is a nice improvement, and the articulated screen of the t3i may help you out. This is one area where the two newer cameras have a clear advantage over buying a used, older Canon t1i.

Do you do a lot of Strobist stuff? Well, then you might want to upgrade to a Canon t3i (or a Canon EOS 60D). Both the Canon t3i and the Canon 60D offer a built-in commander option to control Canon’s flashes wirelessly. The problem? You need to own a bunch of Canon flashes. If you already bought some off-brand manual flashes, then this is quite a bit less attractive… but if you don’t own a bunch of flashes yet, it might be worth paying a bit extra to get some Canon flashes and use the built-in wireless system. It definitely provides some flexibility and power that you don’t get with wireless triggers and manual flashes.

Note: Curious about the 7D vs 60D vs t3i? I recently wrote up another thorough but simple review, looking at the pros and cons of upgrading.Check it out: Canon t3i vs 60D vs 7D.

Hmm… guess it’s time to move on. They were a great introduction to wireless flash, and they always worked pretty reliably for me when I remembered to put fresh batteries in the receivers. But, I may need a fourth one soon and one of the receivers is getting pretty beat up, so I think it’s time to invest in a new system and keep the Opteka’s on the shelf as an emergency backup.

So am I upgrading to Pocket Wizards? Umm, no. Wish I could say so, but that $5-600 just isn’t in the budget these days. What is in the budget is a set of Cactus V4′s, with one transmitter and three receivers. I haven’t found them on Amazon, but they’re available through the Midwest Photo Exchange. It’s currently $46 for the initial set and $25 for extra receivers. Not bad; still under $100 for a 3-flash set.

One thing I really like is the form factor of the receiver. It looks like it’ll take up less space and hold the flash better on top of a light stand with an umbrella adapter.

My birthday is coming up in February, so I expect to either get them as a gift or I’m going to buy them myself. When I do, I’ll write up a review. In the meantime, let’s hope these Opteka triggers hold out a little longer.

Yeah, I had that problem. She mentioned that she needed a camera, and it had to be pink. Like, well, just about everything else in her life.

So I hopped on Amazon and did a quick search. There were a couple good options. Although I usually opt for Canon cameras, I really liked the look and form factor of the Olympus FE 4020.

It’s got respectable specs, 14 megapixels (do you really need more than that in a point and shoot?). The price point is nice, at around $90 on Amazon after shipping. Plus, I could get this cool pink case to go with it.

I ordered the camera, the case, and a 4gb SD card. When I got the camera, I opened it up, charged it up, and put the SD card in for a quick test shoot. It was your average point and shoot – look at the screen, autofocus and shoot. Good quality pictures with a high resolution.

One cool thing about the Olympus FE 4020 is that the battery doesn’t have a separate, external charger. I admit, this confused me for a second. Instead, you put the battery in the camera, plug the USB cord into the camera, and charge the battery with the USB cable. The camera also comes with a converter to plug the USB cable into a standard electrical outlet, but I often find that I’m around a computer and using the USB cable is easier than pulling out the battery and plugging in a cumbersome charger.

As a random aside, this wasn’t actually a Christmas present. My friend’s birthday was December 14, so it was a birthday present in the middle of Christmas season. She definitely loved the camera, though, and so far I’m 100% satisfied with the purchase.

I do still have some Christmas shopping to do, and someone asked for a Nikon Coolpix L22. It’s another entry level point and shoot camera. It has 12 MP compared to the 14 MP of this Olympus, but that’s not really a huge difference. Once I get my hands on the Nikon, I’ll post my first impressions of it.

I own a Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens. I love it, for certain things. Night football photography is not one of them.

Oddly enough, I got the 85mm lens after thinking through a similar situation. I previously owned the kit lens (Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6) and a low end telephoto zoom lens (Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6). For regular day football games, this telephoto lens was fine. For night games, it combined with my Canon t1i to take noisy and slightly under-exposed but acceptable pictures. It would have been nice to have a faster lens for the night games, but what really pushed me away from the variable aperture 55-250mm was the thought of shooting indoors. I knew that the light levels in our gym and other arenas wasn’t good, and that I’d need a faster lens.

I found a suggestion that the 85mm f/1.8 lens would be good for basketball games. It was a decent investment (I think I paid ~$400 for it), but I rationalized that the lens would do double duty as both sports and portraiture. I also reasoned that it was much cheaper than a f/2.8 telephoto zoom…

So I ordered the 85mm lens. I tested it out at a scrimmage and, while I was satisfied with the exposure (f/2.0 was a helluva lot nicer to shoot with than f/5.6) I didn’t like the short reach of the lens.

The example to the left comes from our regular season opener. This is potentially a really nice image. The problem? It isn’t cropped close enough to the two players on the ground. Sure, I could crop it in Lightroom (and I did when I used the image), but thats a pretty aggressive crop that will highlight noise and focusing issues.

Notice that this is also on the other side of the same end of the court. With an 85mm lens, my student could hardly shoot from one side of the court to the other. When she turned to try to shoot down to the other end of the court, it was a lost cause. The effective reach for really good shots was very small.

This picture comes from a week later. This time, we were in an old gym with even worse lighting. We slapped the 85mm lens on the camera, jacked up the ISO to 1600, and opened the aperture to f/1.8.

Unlike the shot above, this is a nice tight image – and it’s uncropped. The nice thing about shooting ringside at a wrestling match is that you’re close to the action. You don’t need an extra long telephoto zoom to capture the action – 85mm is plenty.

Although I did use the 85mm a few more times (indoor track meets), it didn’t take me long to realize I needed a much longer telephoto zoom to be effective at most of these sporting events. I eventually caved in and plunked down the cash for a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. I wish I could have afforded the Canon version, but… that wasn’t going to happen.

So what about football? Well, take the problem I had with basketball and magnify it three-fold. Here’s a picture from last year’s thanksgiving game, taken with my 55-250mm lens. This particular image was taken at 235mm (thanks, Lightroom, for that random piece of information).

Even with this level of magnification, the image looks better with a slight crop to focus on the ball carrier and #52 throwing the block (you’re looking at the uncropped version). They’re only about 2/3rds of the way across the field (the far hash mark), and it’s straining the focal length of the lens. With an 85mm lens, this wouldn’t be a usable shot.

Consider the size of a football field – 120 yards long and 50 yards across. That’s about 3-4 times the length/width of your average high school basketball court.  The 85mm lens has trouble covering a basketball court, so it surely won’t be able to cover a football field.

Final Thoughts

The Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens is a great lens and it does certain things very well.

In terms of shooting at night, it will do that fine. The large aperture (f/1.8) makes it a very fast piece of glass and you won’t have any problems with light and exposure.

However, the focal length (85mm) just simply isn’t cut out for football photography. A real professional photographer will probably carry a 200mm and a 400mm to a football game. I can’t help but laugh when I see some real amateurs hanging out on our high school sideline with their little 18-55mm lenses and trying to take pictures of the action. You’re going to want something that reaches at least about 200mm to get decent coverage of the field.

If you’re doing portraiture (or maybe wrestling) the 85mm is a great choice. If you’re shooting football, get a longer telephoto zoom that will suit your needs. There’s nothing worse than spending a few hundred bucks on a lens that doesn’t end up doing what you want it to do.