October 25, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
So for the past few days I’ve been doing quite a bit of research on a new digital SLR body. Since I already own Canon lenses — most of which have no resale value — the smartest thing for me to do was focus primarily on Canon camera bodies (just to put it out there: if I could get good money on the lenses I own now, I’d probably make a major switch to Nikon).
Anyway, my current digital SLR is way out of date and I decided recently that it’s about time I get some new gear in my hands. Camera technology and picture quality has changed dramatically over the last 5 years since I last purchased an SLR which means that the gap between high-end professional SLRs and pro-sumer SLRs are becoming narrower.
For example, below is a comparison chart between the Canon EOS 7D and the Canon EOS 5D Mark II (green boxes indicate superior specs).
Click image above to enlarge
While the 5D Mark II is the higher-end camera, it seems like the 7D is the camera that actually gets all the goodies I’d actually make use of. Sure, the 5D’s full-frame sensor is a huge deal, but at this point, I feel like I’m willing to compromise in exchange for a generally more sophisticated feature-set in the Canon 7D. Specifically, here are the things I’m sold on in terms of the Canon 7D being a “better” choice: 8fps shooting, dual Digic 4 processors, better auto-focus system, built-in Speedlite transmitter, on-camera flash, and 100% viewfinder coverage just to name a few — all of these features are missing from the higher-end 5D Mark II for some reason (but I have no doubts that they’ll make an appearance on the 5D Mark III).
Click image above to enlarge
I guess the question for me is whether or not I’m willing to pay an extra $1000 for a full-frame camera with less features. At that price, I’m leaning towards a no.
September 1, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
Hong Kong is one of my favorite places in the world and this Flickr photoset comparing old photographs of Hong Kong with modern images of the same locations is making me have wanderlust. It’s amazing to see what has changed and what has stayed the same over all these years.
August 10, 2009 @ 11:49 am
Click image to view larger
This infographic from a 2007 Time Magazine issue shows the spike in people per area that New York City handles during an average workday. It’s no secret that NYC is busier during the day than at night, but it’s always nice to see this fact shown as vertical graphs for a bigger effect.
Thanks Norman!
UPDATE: Steven over at Spatiality has graciously done the research and found out that the image above is part of a larger November 2007 Time Magazine interactive map showing various population rushes in America. The image was made by Joe Lertola. Also, I replaced the image above with a clearer version from Urban Omnibus.
April 22, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
NYC Grid has a small collection of photos showing the same places in New York City in 1961 and in 2009. Some places have changed a lot over the years while others have almost remained untouched.
June 1, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
I’ve always known that Africa was a very big continent. But I didn’t know it was this big! [via]
The African continent is apparently big enough to fit the United States, India, Argentina, Western Europe, and most of China in it’s space! In fact, all together, these 5 countries still do not make up the total square kilometers of Africa.
Anyway, on a related note, if you like maps, you’ll probably love The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World (11th ed.), available at Amazon.com for $157.50.
I wish I owned this book. If anybody wants to get me an easy gift, this book would be it.
