To Olloclip or not to Olloclip – that is the question

“So…you’re telling me I should order an Olloclip? I sort of – yeah – kind of – really – get the impression you are impressed with it.” That was my exact response to a friend and colleague who just sent me an email that included her impressions of her new Olloclip.

So, what’s an Olloclip, you ask? A couple people think it’s the holy grail of iPhonography (moniker for iPhone photography). It is an accessory lens “kit” to enhance the superb camera built into your iPhone. You do have an iPhone, right?

There is one drawback, however, as referenced in this quote from her email:

“You’re gonna’ LOVE the little olloclip.  Only problem is that you must remove the case…before slipping on.  I’m going to work on modifying my case today so that I can have both.”

But there are advantages to having additional “lens” capability. So…buy one…? OK – I think I will. But I also want an auxiliary lens that can provide some telephoto effect. However, that will be a whole other item to think about. I do want to play with (explore) the visual impact of some fisheye pix and I do need better close-up capability, which the macro lens should cover.

More thoughts/remarks/observations to come…after I get mine ordered, shipped and received. 🙂

AND: Ordered, received, and photos taken. It’s a handy gadget but not my cup of tea, so to speak.  I need the iPhone for quick takes but need a DSLR for more serious photography.

So I posted a photograph the other day…

spider plant babies Nikon P100

…and it provoked an immediate question and comment from a colleague who lives near us at the beach. First, here is the picture:

spider plant babies Nikon P100

Here is the comment: “…it’s often the eye behind the camera that makes the picture.”

I do like to “talk” photography and I do like cameras. However my “taste” in cameras – er, maybe my requirements – have changed over the years. The sharing of the email exchange may get my ideas across better than re-phrasing all of our thoughts. So here goes…

The question I received was…

  Just reading through FB and saw the flower shot where you said you were using a Nikon P100.  Glad you noted that.
  I’ve been corresponding with the fellow who does a lot of the photos I so admire – ……….. .  He told me he uses a D300, it’s old and now he said there are so many better and cheaper cameras out there.  We’re talking about him helping me to find the best one for the type of photos I like to take.
   He also stated he doesn’t like to use a lot of gear – so he keeps his lenses simple.
   I’m not into paying $1,699 just for a camera body.  I’m an amateur – and believe that it’s often the eye behind the camera that makes the picture.  I’ve been on many excursions where the folks are loaded down with tons of equipment – all for nought.  One recent birding expedition it seems the guys were competing for who had the longest…lens!  LOL
   Do you have any suggestions?

 

Here is my reply…

  Sure, I’ll help you spend your money. I love shopping for new cameras. NOT.
  More seriously, I think it is difficult to buy a “bad” camera today. Even the sub-$100 el-cheapos have more capability than the ones with which I entered into digital photography.
  I have used a Nikon D50 for many years – and have a $500 wide angle lens that is still the best I have for building photography (such as this: http://www.oceancityhotels.org/wp-content/uploads/plim-plaza-hotel-600.jpg ). But for just about everything else I am using one of two Nikon point-n-shoots. My main go-to for the last two years has been a Coolpix S8100 – 10X optical zoom – that actually fits in a pocket. I also bought that CoolPix P100 because of its 26X optical zoom and intended it for zoo animal pictures when I was still creating check designs. I have just discovered all the other capabilities it has and have actually been looking through the instruction manual. The camera has incredible macro capability – as in that px of the spider plant offshoots.
  The P100 is larger than pocket-size but I am getting to like it more all the time. I am looking online to see if I can get an adapter to mount a polarizing filter – of which I am a big fan (for outdoor photography). I think the price point for the camera today is sub-$300 – but you can look that up – as well as read reviews – online. If you have an interest in something like this I’ll be happy to bring it down your way, or meet you somewhere, so you can give it a try. Just have a film card and shoot a bunch of px to take home and examine.
  However, your one, simple statement is very important – and it hold very true unless one is doing large-scale commercial photography. “…it’s often the eye behind the camera that makes the picture.” I would just drop the word “often” from that statement.
  For the birders out there. Yes, a big (expensive) telephoto can be an asset – but it can also be a hindrance. The smaller, lighter camera may allow you to get into better locations more easily. However, at long focal lengths any camera will need a tripod to avoid blur. (My macro of the spider plant was, indeed, hand-held – and would have been a bit sharper with a tripod.)

 

In summary, and after re-reading – I think my next purchase may be a high quality monopod. 🙂

Back in the Air – Finally

It’s been a long wait, but having the wings rebuilt on an antique airplane, like my 1946 Ercoupe, takes a long time. The shop that recovered the wings did an incredible job and I am confident the “new” wings are better than when they first flew – back on August 16, 1946. The original wings were not anti-corrosion coated – these now are. Modern fabric (Ceconite was used on this project) and coatings are better, because of technology, than they were waaaaay back then.

So, this morning, I was able to leave work (I’ve got an understanding boss when it comes to flying ;)) and head to the airport. The weather was not conducive to flying to a destination – cloudy, low ceilings and slightly “bumpy.” But the ceiling was high enough to safely fly in the local area and do a series of takeoffs and landings (TOLs).

The first flight after any reconstruction and an annual inspection (which was completed when the wings were done) is akin to being a test-pilot flight. So, a test pilot I was. First a thorough pre-flight inspection was in order – which we do EVERY TIME we fly. Then I did one lap around the pattern, flying for less than 10 minutes, and landed. That was followed by another thorough pre-flight inspection – checking for leaks, looseness in any fittings and anything out of the ordinary. Everything was perfect. Yayyy! So back up I went…and flew for about an hour. I did more TOLs and some local flying with basic maneuvers – all the while staying within “gliding distance” of the airport. I am confident the job was done correctly (I monitored the steps of the process) and the plane has been flight tested, so I am eagerly awaiting good flying weather to go chase that $100 hamburger.

Oh yes, not only do the wings look new, but I can tell a difference in the handling of the airplane. It responds better in slow flight – the technical reason being too involved for this post. (Now I need to find some pictures.