My Experiences using & customizing my gadgets, & other interests

Best Professional FDM 3D Printer Easy to Use for Beginners

2023-04-10T04:56:00.001+12:00

Righto so this is a short article just to share some recent developments.

I've now been 3d printing long enough to be comfortable with any FDM printer, & I actually own 4 3d printers now. 2 FDM & 2 are resin printers.
We'll talk about Resin printers next but lets talk FDM first.

So I want talk about my newer 3d printer the FlashForge Creator 3.
I bought it because it has a few newer cooler features, like dual Independant Extruders - meaning its 2 heads run simultaneously side by side.
It also has webcam & wifi connection. A removable magnetic flex build plate, & the head still gets to 320C with a high speed heating option.
For a machine thats only $4000 this is impressive.

The best commercial grade, robust, high end printer that you can use on a desk is still the Creatbot F430, but I'm really impressed with how much I do with my newer FlashForge Creator 3 IDEX.
The Creatbot F430 doesnt have all these newer things.

I use my Creator 3 a lot now a days because I actually find the print setup easier, & working with the slicer a lot nicer. Its called FlashPrint, which may sound proprietary but its not.

The machine is quite open you can use whatever you want, but I really like their bundled program.
The built in settings & profiles are really well tuned, you can basically press print & walk away it is that good.

The way I now work is for things that dont need a heated chamber (large ABS or polycarbonate enclosures or high temperature materials like PEI) then I use the Creator 3 straight up.

And when I need the heat chamber, or want to make something particularly strong out of high strength Carbon Fiber Nylon, thats when I use the Creatbot F430 - it still has the edge there around higher flow rate.

But the Creator 3 is awesome. Please dont compare this with the Creator 2, or Creator Pro 2 or any such sounding name. They are good printers but no where near this Creatbor 3 Pro. Get the 3 pro not the 3 v2 or older version.

This machine took 10 mins to setup after unpacking. Heck I spent more time unpacking than I did setting it up. I treally is that good. The guided setup with the wizards & auto levelling & extruder calibration & everything is really good.

This machine actually offers a dual head extruder clibration as part of the initial setup. So it is the best printer I have for dual colour 3d printing. Even for soluble supports, or for using 2 different grades of TPU, this is the best choice.

Multi material printing with 2 TPUs is really cool. Making objects that are soft & bendy is really cool.
Obviously, yes it is for my speaker cases. I'm making functional gaskets & covers to put inside on the electronics & also as dampeners - again, I know I have to write a lot on that topic, I will get to it.
Thank you for your patience.

Yes I dd buy this from 3D Printer Store in Auckland, the same business that I bought the F430 from. And its the same guy who I have had a good relationship over the last couple of years now.
Everything very smooth, no dramas.

So if anyone want sto do any product design with a broad ange of materials (beyond just PLA) & you want to not buy a toy & tinker but rather a tool that works from day 1, then you definitely want to look at this printer.

You very rarely find a printer that has all this capability, & yet so easy to use that a newbie can buy it as their first 3d printer & can continue growing into it.
I wouldnt recommend the F430 for a noob, but this one, yea, go for it..

Best commercial grade 3D Printer in New Zealand

2022-02-11T04:21:00.000+13:00

Some of you may have noted I'm very much into 3D modelling, 3D Animation, CAD, etc. Its been my hobby for years since I was a teenage kid.

3D Printing is the next logical step to 3D design so I've owned many 3d printers over the years, mainly filament based, called FDM / FFF type.

It all started when desktop 3d printing started to get more popular, from the Makerbot days.

Back then 3D Printing was in its infancy, in New Zealand in particular as a smaller country we had no local players.
Of course times have changed now.

The 3D Printers I have owned & used extremely thoroughly:

Makerbot Replicator

UP Plus (Afinia)

Wanhao i3

FlashForge Adventurer

FlashForge Creator 3 Pro Independant Dual Head

Creatbot F430

And some I have owned but very quickly moved on from:

Dremel

Anet A8

Tevo Tarantula

Creality CR10

FlashForge Inventor

If you don't want to read the full article but just want to know my current personal favourite 3d printer, its the Creatbot F430 3D Printer. However this is a very serious 'Toy'.
I class it as a semi-industrial & rather commercial machine.

Sometimes if I want to print a simpler part, particularly with dual colour or in multi material or with soluble support, then I prefer this FlashForge Creator 3 Pro which I feel is the best Desktop grade Professional 3d printer that is cheaper.

I can sing praises on these machine all day long. The F430 in particular is everything I wanted in a 3d printer.

I was a little concerned about buying such an expensive machine at first because there were not many reviews for it.
But now I understand that the target market for these machines isn't hobbyists buying $500 Ender 3 & posting youtube videos.
This is serious shit, designed for people who want to make money from 3d printing, or save lots of money with 3d printing, a business user or serious designer - like me haha.

Initially I bought it because it was big as I wanted to experiment with 3d Printing some speaker enclosures.
Most of you will see my long history of obsession with speakers, & designing speakers finally got boring enough that I started to dabble on enclose design.

I've got a lot to share on that front as well, but that's another post as I get time.

The idea of printing exotic filaments was very interesting because PEEK has resonance characterists similar to wood.

But when I heard the price of PEEK I shat my pants - quite frankly I didn't think I would be able to afford PEEK & all those fancy plastic names they were touting, but I thought well, may as well future proof yourself right.

One day PEEK will be cheap enough to 3d print speaker enclosures & I'll be all set for it!

The local company was prepared to give me a free course on how to 3d print all that hightech stuff as well so I thought to myself at least I know they're not bullshitting me when they say it will 3d print any filament currently available including peek.

At first I though if its 'FREE it probably isn't & I'll be listening to a sales pitch with more products thrown at me.

Turns out the chap who runs the business actually knows a thing or 2 about 3d printers. So I actually really enjoyed the training session & we hit on a lot of interesting topics, pretty technical fellow, not your average suit wearing sales idiot.

Check out their 3D Printer Store NZ website where I got it from.

I got given a really thorough run down on the free Creatware program that comes with the machine. Granted it looks like a hack out of an older version of Cura so nothing spectacular, but regardless it was good to understand the nitty gritty of how to use the numbers to get the result you want.
Then once you get it it doesn't really matter what program you use.

The machine is built like a bloody tank. I mean shit it weighs so much I said to the guy how the hell will I get it back out of the car. Luckily my neighbour is also quite intrigued with 3d printing etc so he was all to keen to help & excited to see it work.

This machine has automatic bed levelling - trust me when you have a glass bed that big, its never going to be perfect. You can level all you want, but somewhere, something is going to be off.

The machine compensates for this quite nicely. Nothing spectacular, but hey, I was happy that one headache around constantly worrying about levelling was finally over.

My first print straight after I took the beast home was a 6 hour long platform jack. It came out perfect.
I then jumped right into Carbon Fiber Nylon because I've always loved the matted look of carbon & how 3d prints look less 3d printed with the layers when you use CF.

The machine has 2 heads & really easy to change nozzle sizes.

So I bumped on a 0.8mm nozzle that pours a shit load of material out, making some nice chunky carbon reinforced parts.

Man they are STRONG.

All in all I'm really happy with the Creatbot F430 3D Printer & I highly recommend it to anyone particularly in New Zealand.
I bought mine here from 3D Printing Services (also called 3D Printer Store now a days) based in Auckland & get the free training - I highly recommend them.

The owner is really passionate about helping people & actually took a keen interest in the speaker enclosures I wanted to develop.

He even sliced one of the stl files for me with his recommended settings & gave me lots of ready settings for different materials & nozzles & what not - really you could see that passion for 3d printing was there.

Great folks to work with.

And man the amount of different filaments they have in stock is insane.
I was blown away by what they stock right here in little New Zealand & the amount of support they offer on how to 3d print each & every one of those materials!

Of course no 3D printer is perfect though.

Like a month later, the levelling probe stopped working. And the stupid thing is that without this probe working the whole unit becomes useless. Can't home & can't start print jobs.

I didn't realise this 1 Z axi levelling probe was the master of all rings. I expected end stop switches for all axi so when it stopped like this I was worried.

I phoned 3d printing services & like a minute later I have a new probe being sent my way.

Turns out the probes are magnetic solenoid driven or something so if you print a lot of long hot prints in winter with the heated chamber turned on like I do then the probes demagnetise.

No fuss though, the next day the probe was here & it was 5 mins to change it.

The head part was a bit fiddly. Stupid cover on the back of the head, what a dumb design.
But anyway it was easy fix & all back to printing again.

Been a few months now & this new probe has not given me any grief.

I've put at least 2 larger enclosure prints of 60 hrs each using their PLA Filament & they came out amazing. Check out their 3kg rolls those are perfect for these big prints.

I'm now saving up to start on that same big enclosure with their PETG & other Carbon Fiber filaments to see how the harmonics sounds.

I particularly love their Nylon CF & really want to try make a speaker with it but bloody hell those rolls are $85 per KG. Thats basically $85 for EACH speaker.

That a bit rich to be honest, but the materials are bloody amazing quality.
The CF parts I printed parts look as good as machined parts - they don't look 3d printed at all. And you pay for that!

Anyway I felt I'll share my favorite 3d printer now that I have owned it for enough time to have an informed opinion.

Luckily 3D Printing Services actually carry it in stock.
I also phoned another company in NZ who had listed it as in stock but turns out they Drop Ship from China haha & there is a so called order delay - whatever.. and they even charge like a thousand dollars more than 3D Printing service up in Auckland.

I was a bit apprehensive at first because it is the most expensive 3d printer I have ever bought, but worth every dollar.

This F430 really is the bomb - I couldn't find anything in NZ or even Australia that comes close to it!

If you want the Best 3D Printer in New Zealand - hands down the Creatbot F430 from 3D Printer Store is my recommendation.

Best Bread Recipes for Bread makers in New Zealand

2020-06-14T21:44:00.001+12:00

Nothing beats warm fresh bread, with double churned butter on it.

One of the main issues I've found with online bread recipes is that while the ingredients & techniques are explained, the critical component of getting the timing right for each stage is left out.

This is further complicated by issues around temperature in fundamentally cooler countries like New Zealand.

So I started working with several recipes to find what worked, & then understand why it worked.

Luckily, making bread in a bread maker is better, simply because it gets certain timings precise, without being distracted like is humans.

So while my recipe can be made entirely by hand in any oven, I highly recommend a decent bread maker be bought.

We own a Panasonic & my recipe has also been tested on Breville bread makers.

These are the 2 common brands in NZ so I've started there.

So, here is my recipe for the standard family favourite White bread loaf.

3 & half teaspoons of Edmonds Sure Bake bread making Yeast mixture, the Red top bottle. Must be the same as the photo I've showed here, please don't expect the same results with other active or dry yeast, or satchels.

1 tsp salt

1 tsp sugar

1 Tablespoon milk powder

430 grams of High grade flour - any brand is fine.

1 Tablespoon Oil, dont use butter.

280 Ml of Hot water, not boiling. Should be nice & hot straight from your hot water tap is ideal.

Put all ingredients directly in your bread maker pan & leave them for several hours, no need to mix, just soak.

Ideally leave overnight.

If your bread maker has a time function that's perfect.

Just set this up before bed & get it started for morning.

Now on the bread makers part, selecting the correct program is also important.

Please use a 4 Hour bread making cycle.

Don't use a rapid program, not as good.

Though if in rush a fast one is fine, especially if you soaked ingredients as above, but you'll notice the difference.

If you don't soak the above, the results will not be as good even on 4 hr cycle, & worse on rapid.

If you don't use hot water it will not rise as well.

Please set loaf size to medium, not large. And set to a light crust, not a brown crust.

Here is what our most recent loaf looms like, after being cut in half to show you how well it's come out.

We've had amazing & consistent results time.after time with the above.

Now in the next post I'll talk about the different variations you can try for any different things you want.

But please start here & hope you enjoy the bread as much as we do.

Happy baking.

B&W DS3 / DS6 Dipole Speakers - A Pragmatic Opinion

2016-05-20T04:09:00.002+12:00

B&W DS dipole speakers - The Practical Merits of Dipole Surrounds

The internet is always filled with rage around topics that have strong views.
A lot of extremism exists around Dipoles for Surround use.
The pro-THX clan argue it is 'not Hifi' & the Home Theatre guys argue that HT is all about Dynamics, not just 'Hifi'.

I am hoping to bring a rational opinion here for the common consumer...

My view on Dipole in general:

Yes the DS is not 'HIfi'.
But putting a hifi speaker the best way you can still doesn't guarantee THX class perfection in an HT setup, simply because most living rooms are not THX class listening areas.

Ladies & Gentlemen, once you realise that Dipole speakers were designed as an 'imperfect solution' for our 'imperfect listening areas', you realise that there really isnt much to debate about.

Most people cant leave an empty 1.5 metre gap between their couch & the back wall in a typical 25-30sqm lounge that houses their TV & Sound system.
Many people with young kids or pets prefer to wall mount things for safety.

These constraints require us to adapt the 'hifi' technology to create as capable an experience as possible that resembles what should have been 'hifi'.

So we are creating a hifi quality experience, to the best degree possible, by creating imperfect speakers for our imperfect situation. Two wrongs can sometimes make a right I guess.. ;)

Part of the problem is that dipole speakers are defined as speakers that 'diffuse sound' & make it appear from no particular place.
This textbook definition may seem correct, but it is practically speaking too hollow.

A dipole speaker diffuses sound to remove the overpowering effects of angled tweeters, & not to diffuse the point source location.
Its not that a dipole speaker goes off & you cant tell where its coming from.
It is obvious there is a speaker on the top left/right - it just doesnt distract you or overpower the fronts, & when you realise their duties, you appreciate what they can do.

The B&W DS6 - a well designed speaker:

The DS3 & DS6 are actually very similar sounding for their dipole purposes.

They marry beautifully with any 6 series B&W speaker around.

They go low enough to render all the directionally audible bass clean & clear.

The DS3 goes lower than the DS6 by a fair margin, but for surrounds this is less important once we achieve a good timbre match in the 300Hz-3KHz range.

Their midrange sounds very clean & the vocals very clear even in dipole setups.

The DS3 has a tweeter there to satisfy you if you insist that you were missing out on crucial surround information between 8-16KHz before (come on, really?) & want to use it in monopole mode.

You mean to tell me you were watching a movie & the first thing you notice is that one of the dipole surrounds cant render higher than about 8KHz too well - doubt it..

Most people cant even hear past 12KHz clear enough, & sound engineers don't put in such high treble content in the back channels because they know shrill sounds are very directional & would distract the audience.

High pitch sounds are fronts, medium treble is the centre, & the 1-6Khz range is the predominant one used in surrounds for special effects.

So when a DS6 'diffuses' - no scratch that word, its deceptive in this context - when a DS6 reduces the 'directional overpowering characteristics' of the sound, its allowing you to be less distracted by individual pieces of sound & more immersed in the audio image, like the audio recording would have wanted you to.

And I like to stress this - By using dipoles you are getting a listening experience that the audio engineer possibly wanted you to have.

That experience may not have been as good on your standard hifi bookshelf which you have directional tweeters pointed at you in your average living room & create a audio image far different to what the artists intended.

If you think about it this way, you realise that dipoles do have a place in the hifi world.

If you are in an imperfect listening environment where you cant place full range speakers correctly, or are in a room too small to allow creating an envelope using hifi speakers, then I definitely recommend the B&W Ds6 & DS3 dipole surround sound speakers as satellites.

Even if your room has the space, get he DS as they are easier to get right, they will not disappoint.

B&W VM1 - Horizontal & vertical speakers

2016-05-20T03:08:00.000+12:00

B&W VM1 - An Amazingly Good Centre Speaker!

I couldn't believe my ears when I heard this speaker.
On the outside, I wasn't expecting much because I normally find speakers with flat baffled enclosures to not deliver great sound.

The VM1 was designed to complement modern flat panel TVs so they are long & flat, but not deep.
I normally find such speakers to be quite poor, so I was very impressed with what I heard.

The VM1 can be mounted vertically, or horizontally.
I was particularly impressed by how well it worked as a centre channel in HT use partnered with the B&W 686.

What really intrigued me is that the VM-1 & LM-1 are theoretically supposed to be identical speakers, with the same drivers in only a different enclosure. Yet the VM1 somehow stands out vocally.
And thats despite it being a flat enclosure, & the LM1 being a rounded baffle.

The VM1 vocals are crisp & it has a lot of detail in the bottom end.
Its a 2 way speaker but doesn't have the muddiness I often complain about with centre channels.
The VM1 wont go as deep as anything new like a HTM62 but thats perfectly fine, its not the target competition.

If you were on a budget, & owned B&W 6 series bookshelves, I would highly recommend buying these second hand for around $100 they are a steal.

The LM1 is also a great speaker, but a tad out of place for centre channel use as it cant be laid flat down, & wont look good laying flat down.

If I had a choice between a VM1 & LCR3 - which the VM1 reminds me of, then I would go with VM1 for small bookshelves & LCR3 for bigger 3 way floor standers.

I wish B&W make a new Vm2 - There is surely going to be a target market for it.
At least the market that the poor M1 left out on!

B&W M1 Theatre speakers

2016-05-20T02:23:00.002+12:00

B&W M1 - Looks a million dollars, sound, not so much.

Sorry dear B&W but this speaker is going to get a little bit of slamming, please take it as constructive feedback & not hate speech because I like 99% of what you deliver.
And it saddens me more than you realise because this is the first B&W speaker that disappointed me!

If you want to buy a BOSE but instead want B&W written on it, then get these...

These satellites look awesome, they are built exceptionally well, internal metal bracing & weighty build.
Sliced paper & damped polymer 4 inch driver.

You think youre about to be blown away, but instead you wonder if the speaker is blown!
Gutless, low sensitivity, poor frequency range & missing the classic B&W midrange vocals.
Sadly the sliced paper cone woofer doesnt even deliver as good a bassline as the LM-1 that they were meant to replace!

I think most people will agree that B&Ws key strong point is that their speakers deliver fantastic imaging in the midrange region, this is why we buy their speakers time & again.
These speakers lack the B&W signature sound - then why would you buy them..

I cant help but wonder if B&W get the M1s made elsewhere at some OEM company in China & just put a B&W badge on the grille...

The Aluminium housed PV1D sub is the star of the show aesthetically, but Im not reviewing it in this post because the M1 & the Sub are sold separately & can be purchased for use in your system.

The overall frequency response is really lacking below 100Hz - now you might say thats the design, but why have such a design?
If the LM1 could deliver 70Hz so well that it felt like you were actually listening to a monitor rather than a satellite, why not improve on that with the M1?

Just because satellites are being made by one & all doesnt mean B&W has to follow suit & make a dinky little 'Sony Home Theatre in a Box' equivalent satellite speaker & start pushing them out.

I really hope an M2 is in the works Bowers & Wilkins - And Im sure you wont repeat your mistakes.
I had high expectations from the M-1 because I appreciated the LM1 & VM1so much.

Please give us back the sound we love, even if it means making a speaker just a little tad larger.
Thanks B&W!

B&W WM2 - More than just a weather proof monitir!

2016-05-20T02:06:00.002+12:00

The excellent B&W WM2

For a while, the best B&W budget speaker has been a second hand B&W 601 S2/3, however the WM-2 is a real contender for the best of the small speakers B&W make.

Let me tell you more about this hidden gem.
Whilst sold as a weatherproof outdoor speaker, the WM-2 is very capable indoors.
Its tweeter is not a aluminium dome nautilus tube design, its the cheaper plastic tweeter that B&W use with their 'solid' series & the LM-1 etc

However, the midbass units in the WM2 are not the same as the LM1 or VM1, despite the similar naming initials.
The LM/VM use a 4 inch paper cone speaker.
The WM2 uses a 5 inch kevlar re-inforced cone that is similar to the newer 600 series!
And this makes a lot of difference.. in base but more importantly in midrange vocals.

You get from the WM2 the same warm vocals that you get from a 600 or a 601.
The speaker cone can be pushed a bit without risking distortion.
I gave it a +6db of bass increment & the results were excellent - it handled perfectly.

The speaker has a small footprint but is ported - & that tells us that the driver is capable of moving a lot of air, thus a reflex design was chosen & it worked well.

The outer rounded rectangle appearance make the speaker look like something designed to hang outside a shop or in an open ground.
But if you are happy to live with industrial looking speaker brackets, the rest of the design is quite sleek & very usable at home.

My only feedback is that they should have paired it with a slightly better tweeter, so that the treble was more smooth & went higher up.
It appears this speaker needs to be crossed over lower than other 600 series speakers, & this does seem to affect the sound.
Perhaps changing the crossover frequencies slightly would have made some difference but I wont comment on that as I am not the designer - Im sure they did their best with the componenets.

I also wish they would have release the WM2 under a sibling model, like IM2 - same speaker but with slightly better outer materials, or colours even.
Its simple plastic housing does tend to give away some of the sophistication B&W customers would get with speakers like the LM or VM, & definitely with the 600 series.

But other than that, get a WM2 - it is currently the best small speaker by Bowers & Wilkins.

B&W LCR 60 vs LCR 600 vs HTM 62 vs HTM 61

2014-10-31T18:39:00.001+13:00

Comparing the B&W lcr 60 to lcr 600 & to the HTM6xs

For the purposes of this comparison, we are assessing speakers for their centre channel performance, & not so much as a full range front or centre. The LCR was designed to be used in either config, but I doubt that actually worked for B&W the way they expected...

Findings:

The LCR600 is an amazing speaker, compared to the LCR60.

The smaller LCR60 impressed me in its versatility, but not so much in its overall vocal depth.

The LCR 600 blew me away, & reminded me of the HTM61
The 61 has more presence, but the 600 is what the 60 should have been I think.

The LCR60 & 600 are both very big for what they are.
But the 600 makes it at least worth while.

The LCR 600s vocals are amazing.
It is not as muddy as the other speakers of the older designs.
The only thing it lacks is a bit of low level extension, which the HTM62 in particular excels at.
The 62 though doesn't have the openness that the 61 has.

The 600 thus seems like a lovely compromise between 62 & 61.

If you cant afford the HTM61, get the LCR600 over the HTM62 would be my opinion overall.
(we're referring to S1 which doesn't have any series number written on it, not talking about the not the newer HTM61 S2)

But if size matters & hifi audio is the only thing you do, the HTM62 gets the slight upper hand.
But for movies, the LCR definitely clearer for dialogue.

Price wise, LCR600 wins again as it will be cheaper.
If you have been considering a LCR60 & have the option of paying just a bit extra/got a bit of room for a LCR600, I cant recommend that enough.

After listening to the 600, Id go so far as to say that you scratch the 60 out of the equation completely & focus on HTM62 vs LCR600 as your final contenders, or go straight to a HTM61.
On a very tight budget & if looking for a dedicated centre, a B&W CC6 would be my preference cost wise & size wise.

I have high hopes from the HTM61 S2 vs CMC2 - I think thatll be a great battle. I'll audition that someday & report on it :)
Until then, happy listening folks.

B&W 686 vs Wharfedale 121 vs Wharfedale Diamond 10

2014-10-29T17:35:00.002+13:00

Comparing the B&W 686 vs Wharfedale 121 vs Wharfedale Diamond 10 speakers

Summary:

The 686 wins clearly & for good reasons.
The diamond 10 have had rave reviews claiming they are great for the price.
If you are on a budget, buy a used 686, it costs the same as a new diamond 10.

If buying new, don't even consider the 121s because they cost the same as the old 686 (now called Series 1 since the S2 have been released)
If you want lots of mid bass & don't want to put a sub, then you could argue the 121 is better for you, but if you want something that sounds like that go buy a cheaper set & save your money.

I would not recommend the 686 S2 unless you really want to have a bigger speaker, in which case buy a 685, or a 685 S2.
I discuss this in my previous post comparing the 686 to the 600 series etc
Speaker are passive electric components, they don't die for years. If youre really out of luck something may go wrong, but otherwise, don't settle for new junk over second hand goodies.

Testing:

Rotel 5.1 receiver with USB input.
I use usb flash drives & CDs quite extensively. I am not an analogue audio purist.
I use my ears, rather than argue over stuff I cant tell apart, or ever afford.
I like the way CDs & MP3s extracted nicely sound, & I see no need to only use vinyl or a $4000 preamp before any speaker testing can be done.

Details:

The dealer told me the 121s have the most bass & are the newest & have had rave reviews.
He's right about everything else, except, they don't sound the best at all.
Typical wharfedale making it cheap & grabbing the spot light didn't help this time because the 121 is not cheap! Priced the same as a 686 (not the 686 S2) this speaker is easy to look past.

Bloated bass. No point having more if it sounds so muddy. The bass overpowers the vocals completely.
Speaker has practically no sound stage!
The diamond 10 bookshelf had better top end than it, but then the diamond is treble bright as hell & has no low end vocals, its a tatty flat speaker.

The 121 was warmer than the Diamond 10.1 I admit, but no where near the clarity of the B&Ws.

There was some kind of disconnection between the bass & the treble in the 121. Think of a system where a sub was crossed over poorly & felt like a separate component going off rather than a nicely rolling bass line. That's exactly what the 121 sounded like.

There is good bottom end base, I can feel it, but because the mid bass is also oddly high, this bottom end becomes muddy rather than clean & defined.
Fix this wharfedale folks in maybe a 122 & you might actually have a decent speaker.

The diamond 10.1, well, tatty, bright, gutless, no real bass, I cant see what people rave about with these speakers I tell you.
Maybe you need to really tune your bass & treble settings or your eq. But what the heck, a good speaker shouldn't need you to do all that for its inherent sound to be pleasant.
The diamonds go off & I actually move my ears away & cringe.

I put the treble down & the bass up & yes they sounded slightly better, & the top end of the vocals was not as muddy as the 121 which is a plus.
The 121 has a softer higher end, but that's all plagued by excessive bass that's probably caused people to keep the volume low, & thus the relative volume of other freq must be low such that the treble seems soft. Louder, these speakers have more prominence, but not in the vocals sorry.

The 686 is pleasant, & still grunty bass line contrary to what you might think. I discuss it in my post comparing it to other speakers B&W 6 series speakers here

If you want a small speaker that sounds great as a hifi full range speaker, get the 686, you wont regret it.

B&W 686 vs DM 600 S3 - vs the 601 S3 & the 685

2014-10-29T17:01:00.003+13:00

B&W 686 bookshelves vs the older DM 600 S3

If you dont want to read the whole thing, heres the Summary:

The 686 is leaps & bounds better than the dm-600.

Why exactly that is, Im unsure because the only thing we're told has actually changed is the crossover & tweeter placement.
Sure, that's enough to cause change in sound, but I cant see how such a substantial change can happen just by changing that much, because if just making such a little change can make the 686 sound so much better, why on earth even bother releasing such an inferior speaker like the 600 S3..!

Its almost like B&W made the 686 first & then decided to muck it up & sell it as a 600, just so that they can sell the 686 a few years later.

Testing details:

All the testing was done with speakers used in fronts, not as surrounds.
They were placed on a large strong wood cabinet.

The critiques among you will argue that I need to use these on $1000 stands, but sorry guys my style of auditioning is that I compare things in standard operating conditions & highlight their differences.
Things don't have to be taken to Abbey road studios each time for a test.
End of the day a good speaker will sound better than the inferior speaker. As long as the testing conditions such as placement, amp, wires, room dynamics etc stay the same & we don't have any background noise, I feel the test is conducted accurately enough.

They were first tested without a sub with the speaker size in the amp was set to large, so nothing would be cut out or cross over.
And then with a sub (crossed over at 60Hz from the amp) with the size set to large, never small.
The sub was a simple B&W AS-1 which I discuss in this post here (set to music mode).

The amp used was not as good as I would have liked but I must say that the Kenwood KRF rated at 140Wpc had plenty of power to drive these & get those vocals out which my lower powered Technics could not achieve, which we connected at the end just for fun to see how much degradation there would be.

But the good thing is that this less than ideal amp, we still got the clear winner, & goes to show you don't need to have a $2000 amp to do the sound test.

On a side note:
This amp sounded much much better than anything out of Yamaha. I still cant see why Yamaha is such a recommended brand, its a good 'fail safe default' but I have yet to actually like any of their hifi products.
Even onkyo which was once considered second class, makes better sounding stuff these days, for cheaper...

First the DM 600 S3

The Good:

The sound is warm. The detail is there & you can tell the instruments apart, but not as much as the 686.
The sound matches nicely with cheaper speakers, like a cheaper centre, the 686 demands you to do better. Yes you cant quite call it a plus I guess because it means the speaker is like a cheaper crappy one, but sometimes if you have a small budget & want to just get slightly better fronts without breaking the bank or having to upgrade everything, this could cut it.
The speaker is longer than 686 but still quite compact & not as deep, this makes it look nicer when close to a TV or wall mounted.
The grills are the older style, far easier to detach than the new tight thin studs on the 68x series that break too often.

The Bad:

The vocals are poor, rather gutless, no real bassline in them, no depth in the vocals, in line with the 685.
The bass overall is very poor, get a sub. Not just bottom end, but even mid bass suffers.
See my previous post mentioning how I disliked the new 685 to the older 601 in comparing the 685 vs 601 here.
The speakers seem less sensitive, I could not hear echos & transitions in the 600 that I can with the 686.

The mighty 686

The Good:

The sound is beautifully detailed.
The vocal are rich, deep, & clean.
The bass is mind-blowingly good from a speaker this small.
Remember we are not talking about just mid-bass, these babies can actually go low enough to not need a sub, if properly placed!
That's amazing, most people tell you to that you will certainly need an ASW 608 with these, but with 685 you might get away. What non-sense, the 686 is infact better!
If you tell me the 686 needs sub, then the 685 needs it even more.
If you want something small, this is it.
Don't bother with the wharfedale 121 which some people love to recommend just because its slightly newer. Check this post here comparing the B&W 686 to the Wharfedale 121 & the Diamond 10, where I discuss how the wharfedale 121 has the most bass boomy bass, but not half the definition & vocal detail the 686 has.

In the B&W world I compare this speaker to the 601, & not the 685, because I feel the 601 is better than the 685.
I discuss why in my previous post comparing the 685 vs 601 here

So its a little less open than the 601 but Id rather have this in a speaker with its tiny foot print then have the same issues in a bigger 685.
I would say that the vocal depth & slight loss of imaging in larger rooms make the 601 a better speaker for the mid vocal detail, but otherwise these 686s are nice.
Again, let me clarify that everything good about the 686 is impressive simply because of its small size.
If these speakers were large, this would be a very different kind of review.

Quite senstive, you can hear sounds that you cant in any other speaker, dare I say not even in the 601 which I also recommend.

The Bad:

The list of bads may seem long, that's just due to the details, very little wrong with it.

The sound is a little less open, so the mid vocals is good but the higher end slightly less so.
Take my numbers with a grain of salt, but it feels like the response is great up to 2Khz, not so good from 2-4Khz, & then good again. This is what it feels like, & quite likely not the fact, please feel free to measure & let me know how far off I am.

You truly are better off using these in small-medium rooms. In a large room get the 601 at least.

The imaging is definitely inferior in larger rooms, making placement rather critical.

Rotation inward toward the centre does not help very much either.
The sound stage they create is not very spectacular & you need to move them further apart in medium-large room while still being close to them (which is difficult) to get anything out of them.
So to clarify, in a room say 5m x 5m, youd have to place the speakers 4m apart, & be only 3m away from them, weird but it works. If you go back to 4m, the sound changes.

The interesting synergy between the 68x & the 60x series

In this previous post comparing the 601 to the 685, I recommended the 601 over the 685.
The opposite has happened here. How could this be?
I cant help but think there is some kind of product development strategy going on here.
Make the 601, goof up the 600 - tick
Make the 686 goof up the 685 - tick
Make the 685 s2 & goof up the 686 s2 - tick
At this rate, next we'll have:
Make the 686 s3 & goof up the 685 s3.
So you could either buy the 685 S2 or wait for the 686 S3 - OR, save the dosh & buy a 686 (not the S2)

The new 686 S2

I did not audition these properly except for a slight listen, & frankly I didn't want to because I fundamentally cant make sense of why B&W did what they did to a good speaker.
Lets get something straight, the whole point of the 686 was to make the speaker as small as it could be, & yet sound good.
Why make it longer, & so long that its the same size as the 685!

You may argue that its not just smaller but also cheaper, but lets be honest, if you can afford a $900 686 S2 then you can afford a $1100 685.
And if you are crunching on a budget, you wont touch the new ones anyway & buy second hand.

Sure, front porting it opened a whole lot of placement options & would improve bass, but as above, the 686 already delivers enough bass from a compact monitor & if you wanted more bass, you would attach a sub anyway, most of us do.
So the design philosophy doesn't make sense to me, happy to stand corrected though.

Sorry Bowers & Wilkins Im ditching a bit of dirt at you folks in this post compared to my other posts, but as much as I like your products, my reviews are very honest & unbiaised.

Sure the new tweeter is a welcome addition, but that has nothing to do with front porting a speaker & making it 2 inches longer. It kills the whole point of having a discrete little surround monitor.

You are welcome to challenge any of my opinions, Im always happy to stand corrected.

Full Frame FX vs Crop sensor DX - DOF

2014-10-17T14:27:00.003+13:00

Full frame vs DX for DOF

A lot of online posts talk about how the key point behind FF is low light ISO performance, followed by Depth of Field, but no one has properly shown it side by side with examples.

It was this talk about subject isolation & DOF that really got me interested in FX in the first place.
So I asked myself the key question:

If I take the same exact photo with the 'equivalent focal length lenses' (eg 50mm on FX & 35mm on DX) , then how much more shallower DOF will I actually be getting with the Full frame camera?

After doing a fair bit of research into considering whether Full Frame was my next big step, I realised that the only way to know the answer would be to buy one & then publish my results side by side.

The article is still in progress with photos etc but Ill publish it as the outcome is quite clear.

Short Answer:

If you don't want to read the whole thing but want my confirmed opinion based on my photos, here is my verdict:

If you are an experienced amateur or semi-pro, FX has a significant advantage for subject isolation & DOF to create a smooth bokeh. We're not talking small difference, we're talking game changer difference. FX wins big. I illustrate the benefits by placing multiple side by side photos in the article below. But if you don't care about the shallow depth of field, then there is not enough benefit in moving to FX.

If you are a new comer to DSLR world I actually recommend DX because of this feature.

The limited depth of field in FX needs control. If you buy a f1.8 prime lense & just leave the camera sitting on Program mode & are taking family pics, the camera will use f1.8 for every shot to compensate for the low light, so it can cause a lot of your subjects to be out of focus, or one eye in focus & the other blurred etc, even if they are slightly tilted.

If you are new to photography, get a DX camera, there is more than enough subject isolation possible for a beginner even on DX until you improve your aperture selection.

Other Observations:

ISO performance is better in my D600 than any previous camera, but having used a D7000 before, I don't consider ISO performance to be the key point of a Full frame camera. ISO performance & low light benefits in newer DX cameras are very comparable to equivalent class FX cameras & don't justify spending double to move to FX.

If you want super sharp beautiful portraits & exceptional detail in your images at equivalent resolutions to the DX camera, then FX helps. Ie, a 24MP FX will beat a 24MP dx in matters of detail & dof.
If you don't need insane subject isolation & own good lenses on DX, then from the cost stand point there is no other benefit moving to FX. Image Quality on both systems is equal when you compare equally well made bodies with good sensors. IQ doesn't include DOF. IQ refers to mainly things like low light performance & noise. Yes the FX is marginally better, but not significant enough to make a move. If you don't need dof control, don't bother moving to FX.

Objectives of Experiment:

This article focuses on the DOF aspect of the 2 formats, & not necessarily on ever single aspect of the image difference, because there is a significant different between my D300s & D600 in terms of what generation their sensors are etc.

We know for a fact that within reason, not manufacturer has made 2 cameras that are equal with only the limitation of exactly the sensor. Nikon came close to it by making the D7000 & D600 with same senor & AF system, but different number of pixels. Then when they upped the pixels in D7100, they changed the sensor & AF system.

So, lets be very clear about the fact that we will never be able to truly compare apples with apples in regards to image quality, & that no manufacturer will ever make 2 cameras where we can easily prove one format better over the other, because that would hurt their own marketing.

But what we can compare with great ease is the DOF, which is my main area of interest behind putting up this post.

About the Comparison Images

We did the test with primes & zooms.
First with prime lenses set to aperture at 1.8 on FX as the baseline, & then check what the aperture did on FX with the equivalent focal length on DX. Ie, comparing a 50mm on FX to 35mm on DX
And then with zoom lenses set to 2.8 on DX. Comparing a 17-50mm f2.8 to a 28-70mm f2.8.

We start dropping the aperture down on the DX until the DOF looks similar to that set on the FX.

I used the best possible lenses I could afford, but even if they weren't the sharpest, that wouldn't matter so much as all we are focusing on is the DOF differences between the 2 systems.

All images taken at iso 400 aperture priority.
Focal point is always dead centre, which is the black plastic piece in centre of frame.

Prime lenses & large apertures:

I used a Nikon 50mm F1.4D on D600 FX & Nikon 35mm F1.8G on D300s DX.
These are the best lenses Nikon makes for DX & FX respectively.

D600 50mm at f1.8 vs D300s 35mm set to different apertures in every shot

Test 1 50mm f1.8 vs 35mm

The D600 at f1.8 is the clear winner, & you will see this pattern in every single photo. The FX will have a shallower DOF.

Test 2 50mm FX at f1.8 vs 35mm DX set to f2.8

Test 2 50mm FX at f1.8 vs 35mm DX set to f3.2

Common question - Should I buy the best DX or the cheapest FX eg Nikon D7100 vs Nikon D610. Please click on this to read my earlier blog post.

Ramblings & Criticism of some current opinions on the FX vs DX saga

I like to genuinely be neutral & unbiaised when reporting things, I don't have my ego attached to my opinions. And I always change my opinion when a better one is presented.
I also feel that what suits you best is for you as at that point, & could change again.
I was on DX for 10 years before I moved to FX.
I don't care whether something is called DX or FX, what I care about is the findings.

Despite me suggesting that DX is the better option 99% of the time if you don't care about this excessive shallow DOF, I want to address some of the other stuff I have read, which doesn't do justice to either party.

1) The Politically Correct 'Its a choice' Opinion

Many new marketing driven blog posts are now saying its a 'choice'. Ok, you can put it like that, but if its just a 'choice' then there should come a day where FX will cost the same as DX & you'll just 'choose' - but wait, that will never happen, & not because it costs a lot more to make, but because premium cameras will only ever continue to be made in FX to optimise the profits.

If you have all the money in the world & want to buy the best camera AND the best lenses then you have but naturally got the best camera, then you want FX. A big 'AND' above because without the equivalent best FX lenses you are wasting your money, glass before body, always remember that no matter what you buy.

If you cant afford the FX, go for a DX, but don't disillusion yourself into thinking that the DX is somehow 'better' to FX. No its better for you to go with DX as it will save you the dollars as at that point in time, like it did for me, for a whole 10 years I stuck to DX!! But that doesn't mean that FX will not be better.

2 ) DX crop ratio of 1.5x gets me more 'zoom'

Well, to get the said 'zoom', you could take the hires 24MP image you get from your FX camera & crop it as much as you please.
You'll argue that means you're loosing resolution. No, youre loosing 'Megapixels', & you might be thinking that all those extra pixels lost are going to make a worse image, but infact, as we know well, MPs have little to do with IQ. So, the zoom argument in my opinion is moot in todays age of insanely high MPs available in every DX & FX camera out there.

People debate that by putting a 70-200mm F2.8 on DX they are getting the equal of 300mm f2.8
No, they are not. They are getting 300mm at f4.5 because the DOF on DX is less than FX.

By using 70-200mm f2.8 at 200mm f2.8 on a 24MP FX camera, I can then crop it into a 10MP image which will be 300mm f2.8.

Now what would I rather have a 10MP 300mm F2.8 or a 24MP 300mm F4.5??
If you want to follow the megapixel hokum, you're welcome to pick the 300mm f4.5, but any real photographer knows that MP don't mean anything in the real world, where 10MP is more than enough.

3) FX may give me the subject isolation but I loose light so need to push ISO which makes my images noisier.

Best DX camera vs cheapest FX body

2014-10-17T14:25:00.005+13:00

Should I buy the best DX or the cheapest FX eg Nikon D7100 vs Nikon D610

Current approx prices in New Zealand for the D7100 is NZ$1500 & D610 is $2500.

Most extremists have their heart set on one or the other.
I'll simplify the decision making for you here in under a minute.

Its a simple answer based on 3 simple questions.

Is the shallower DOF you get on FX so very important to you that you would pay a whole thousand dollars just to have that??

Is the minor improvement in high ISO performance on FX so important to you that you'd pay a whole thousand for it??

Are you ok with the fact that the D7100 has more AF points at 51 scattered all thourhgout the frame whereas the D610 only has 39 packed mostly in the center, & you are still going to have to pay $1000 extra for a D600 to get the shallower DOF & the better ISO performance?

If yes, go for the D600!

If not, go with the D7100.

Both cameras are brilliant.

What if I can get a second hand D600 for close to the price of a new D7100?

Ok, that makes things easier on the wallet, but the questions don't change too much.
Do you care so much about superb shallow dof performance & slightly better ISo performance that you are ok to sacrifise getting more AF points of the D7100 in return for the D600?
If yes, yay for D600, if not yay for D7100

In reality, I wouldn't even buy a D7100, Id still buy a D7000, save the money & use it for better lenses. remember, no substitute for better lenses. Regardless of DX FX DSLR or any other photographic format on earth.

If I have a budget of $2000, should I buy a D600 & attach a 18-55mm VR kit lens, or a D7100 with a bunch of lenses?

Never forget the golden rule, lens before cameras. Optics before electronics.
Cameras are called electronic devices today, but they are not, they are optical devices.
Crappy optics = crappy photos, never forget that fact.
So forget the fancy body, get the fancy lens. You will not regret the decision & your work will outperform whats produced with cheapo lens on the fancy body.

I already have 3 lenses, but my photos are still not so good, what should I upgrade to?

Upgrade to reading more articles to improve your techniques. Then buy more lenses to try different forms of photography that you find intriguing. Then upgrade the lenses you have to the best in their class based on the ones you use the most. Then read more & upgrade your skills again. And then when thats done, upgrade your camera.
And if switching from DX to FX at that point, please dont forget to buy good FX lenses if you dont already have them.

Good Sigma Lenses

2014-04-29T21:36:00.000+12:00

Into the dark side with Sigma on a Nikon

In this post I list out the few good sigma lenses that are worth the money.

After wondering for many years how a company like sigma could still survive despite having so many lenses that I just didnt like, I decided to research specific sigma lenses in the semi-pro to professional line up & check if they were worth it.

Luckily, I found a few that were, & can be had second-hand for a fraction of the price of their Nikon counterparts. The challenge is knowing these gems & staying away from the other sigma stuff.

In this article I list the Sigma stuff that is really worth it:

1) Sigma 8-16mm DX super ultrawide

This is the worlds widest lens, so wide that despite being on DX, it is wider than every other FX 35mm ultrawide ever made. Every mm of width down the low end is worth getting. This was the first Sigma product that begged me to look into this brand a bit more.

2) Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 DX

This lens is marketed as an in-expensive upgrade to your 18-55mm kit lens, which is exactly what it is, & does that job very well. Sure it isnt as good as the 24-70mm f2.8 below, as per my previous post comparing those 2 lenses. But none the less, it is a worthy light weight lens for someone who wants acarry around travel lens that does decent low light work with nice shallow depth of field & great bokeh as well as good colour rendition & rendition of out of focus spots. It has a built in AF motor so will work on even the cheapest of bodies. And doesnt suffer from the horrible focus grinding issues that other sigmas have.

3) Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 D zoom

Probably the best lens for clean bokeh & a colour rendition so good that it actually competes with Nikon! If you want to go pro with a budget of a newbie, this lens is a must have.
Weighs a tank, like it should, focuses decently but will rely on the AF motor in your camera.
This is NOT a bad thing. Its a myth that body driven AF is slower, which is complete non-sense, infact several new AF motor lenses are infact markedly slower.

4) Sigma 70-200mm HSM f2.8 II (version 2 of the lens with the newer HSM motor I believe)

This lens isnt as good as the Nikon wide open at f2.8, but to be fairm no f2.8 zoom is. They are all a little soft at f2.8 when you start counting pixels.
But the good thing is that this lens improves quite a bit with just f3.2 onwards. And f3.2 @ 200mm is really not much to complain about.
The best thing about this lens is that the focus in really good. The first sigma lens with an HSM motor that really is comparable to Nikon's fast SWM motors.
It doesnt focus hunt & go mad with moving subjects either.
Decent colour rendition, not the best, but adequate at half a Nikons price.
Very nice background blur, & the bokeh is quite ok, though Nikons 70-200 f2.8 VR is the killer in bokeh as well as skin tone rendition.

5) Sigma 100-300mm F4 HSM

This lens didnt impress me as much as I had hoped, but I'll leave it on the list because it does do a good job.
Its big, because F4 @ 300mm needs 'big'. Its acceptable sharpness for its price, but there is room to desire more. It didnt impress me as much as the above 70-200 did.
It does AF really well though, with the same HSM motor. It also doesnt need to turn a lot, I was focusing at different distances from 3m to infinity & the lens was doing it rather fast. Faster than a Nikon 70-300 VR I would say.
If you really need a shallow dof at 300mm where 5.6 just doesnt quite cut it, this lens works well.
I am hoping to get my hands on its older sibling the 100-300mm f2.8 very soon, & I am hoping for good things from it.

I am currently reviewing a few more products, Ill add more info.

Coming up are Sigma 100-300mm f2.8 HSM, Sigma EF500 Super flash & the much anticipated Sigma ART series lenses.

Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Sigma 24-70mm f2.8

2014-03-24T17:49:00.002+13:00

Comparing the Sigma f2.8 mid zooms

More recently, after my first ever positive experience with a Sigma lens in its price class, I decided to explore more Sigma lenses in the hope of finding those that could truly be worth buying.

In general, I still recommend people buy Sigmas only after thorough investigation, else stick to Nikon.

These 2 Sigmas have impressed me, each in their respective price class, BUT (a big but here)
only for use on DX crop frame cameras.

The 18-50mm f2.8 is a DC which is designed only for DX anyway, but the 24-70 is an FX compatible lens, yet I have not tried it on full frame, & frankly, I doubt it will be as good as Nikon

Main characteristics

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC

Designed to work with all DX frame cameras.
Has a built in AF motor so will autofocus with all DX cameras.
Will show significatn vignetting (dark corners) if tried on DX at any focal length

Light transmission is not as good as more expensive f2.8 lenses
So at f2.8, this is more of an f3.2 when compared to my Nikon 18-200mm lense as well as the Nikon 35mm f1.8 G

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 D

Will work on DX & Full frame FX.
The older version without the AF motor will not Autofocus on DX cameras that dont have their own built in AF motor

B+W vs Hoya HD vs Marumi Exus Pro - UV protector filter stand off

2014-02-28T11:04:00.000+13:00

Top end UV Protection filter show down

In this post we do practical side by side photos out of the 3 big names in the filter world to see if either of them is better, & if any of them are worth the premium over their slightly cheaper counter parts.

The Hoya HD is 77mm
The B+W & Marumi Exus are 72mm

Here is the final verdict first:

Marumi exus pro is by far the best filter for the quality & features it offers being the cheapest of the 3.

Hoya HD is incredibly tough but lesser light transmission than the others, even less than the Marumi, which surprised me.

B+W coatings are very very good, for once you appreciate why filters, even in the digital age are very useful.
However, the good quality coatings are not out of the world & so I dont think worth paying 3x the price of Marumi exus pro.

How we went about it:

We will be mounting these on a Nikon 35mm f1.8G prime lens stopped down to F/10 because it is the sharpest lens in this range available at present, & at F/10 its sharpness equals prime lenses ten times its price & is more than adequate for our testing.
Bokeh & colour rendtion dont matter in our test. It is only the variances between the 3 filters is all we are looking for.

There is some argument around how hand holding things isnt exactly 'ideal', but like most of my tests, I want to see real world differences, not just laboratory numbers.
In such cases, hand holding the filter in front of the lens is more than adequate.

3D Scanning Intro with Kinect & Skanect

2014-01-14T02:11:00.001+13:00

Starting out in 3D scanning using Kinect

In this post we talk a bit about our entry into the 3D scanning world, & why I ultimately settled on MANctl's Skanect 1.5 as the choice.

A quick intro to 3D scanning:

You need a 3D scanner such as Asus Xtion or Microsoft Kinect scanner (both the Windows or XBox versions are fine)

Ideally, you want a PC with built in graphics that comes with OpenCL drivers, but that is not compulsary.

Thre are 2 ways most programs go about it, they either rely on your CPU, or on your GPU.

For CPU based scanning, I hihgly recommend a grunty quad core with atleast 4 GB of RAM & Win 7 - trust me you'll need ram for this. I use 8GB & the performance is very good.

For GPU, you'll need OpenCl set up. Back in the day, OpenGL was the thing to look for, now OpenCL seems to be it. But again, you dont need it. Another reason why I chose Skanect, & not Reconstruct Me.

Top contenders & Free tools

ReconstructMe, Skanect & KinectFusion project seem to be the hype but a new free product the FARO Scenect is getting a lot of attention.
FARO's free version is quite hard to use in my opinion, & in my case it failed to actually start despite following instruction carefully. It insisted it couldnt find my XBOX kinect, despite Skanect finding it ok & the correct set of drivers installed.

Why I chose Skanect:

If you dont want the long & short of it, heres why.

Harman Kardon Sound Sticks 2 Review

2014-01-04T17:18:00.000+13:00

I realise these are a bit old now, but given lots of people still buy them or choose believe highly of them, I thought Id write a few of my observations.
The soundsticks 2 are the same as the soundsticks 3 in most ways, so a lot about this review should still be of some relevance.

I also found my old video where I reviewed the Harman Kardon Sound Sticks speakers. so there was more reason to make this post.

The Verdict:

If you dont care about the details & just want to know what I think, then Save Your Monay & go buy something else.

If you dont want real 'hifi' sound, then a Creative Inspire T or P series speaker is great.
They are also much better than Logitech in my opinion, which again is a matter for a different blog post.

The Harmans want to look like they are 'HiFi', but they are not.
If you want real hifi, for that kind of money, it is easily possible to buy a set of used B&W or paradigm (or whatever 'real' hifi speakers you like) & attach them to a half decent used amp, & viola, you have real sound.

The Details

Overall presentation:

But naturally a HK product doesnt fail to impress when it comes to the looks n feel, the aesthetics, the little details such as the feather touch controls are pretty cool, but Im not paying you just for that.

There are more cables than needed, Im sure a simple wiring pattern like those used by everyone else would have been just as easy for HK, but no, we're HK, we'll do it different just so we can justify the $$

The Bummers:

No easy access to bass control, its behind the sub.
Main power switch is same as bass control, again behind the sub!
No head phone jack or front dock of any kind - what a shame.

Bullshit 'guaranteed to not crack at full volume' marketing:

Marketing gimmick telling you the speakers are desgined to not sound off even at full volume. Ie the bass will never ruble & always be clean.

This is a load of crock, all it does is that after a certain 'abolute' master volume level is reached, the 'relative' woofer is volume no longer increased, no matter how high you increase the master volume level.

So when they are loud, they sound very tatty & flat, because there is very little relative bass being pumped out by the system.

The peak bass level is achieved using the bass volume aka gain control, but it has a cut off limiter set at precisely the amount of bass the woofer will emit, so its doing nothing more than limiting your bass - under the pretext of 'rattle proof full volue sound'.

The Sound quality:

Above average but not great. And certainly not worth the money.

The Acoustic/Driver Design:

Not being an acoustic engineer, please take my thoughts with a grain of salt, but my experience hopefully should count for an informed opinion...

More coming up

Lightweight RifleScopes with Parallax Adjustment

2013-08-03T23:41:00.000+12:00

Lightest Rifle Scopes Ive found

Intro

My pursuit to find a super light yet capable scope has often resulted in the usual leupold ultralight being brought out & not much else. So I decided to spend some time & research manually, each of the better scopes with AO & list their weights, if they were comparable to the other ultralight scopes.

The goal is not just to find any old light scope, but rather one that has adjustable objective or side focus, & reasonably good picture quality.
The ultralight only has 1 model with AO, the efr 3-9x33mm, which frankly is just a tad short of the magnification I wish it would otherwise have, because Leupold scopes are inherently extra wide & overstate the magnification when compared to other brands. A 9x leupold really only is an 8.3x & a 6-18x40mm vx-2 is really only a 16.7x scope!

Those of you that have read my previous articles on shooting ergonomics will be aware of my personal belief the rifle weight balancing plays the most important role in your ability to shoot accurately, outside of the firearms technical capability.
I also look into factors such as reticle shape, thickness, & field of view.

In this article, I hope to share with you my findings around which scopes have worked best to aid that goal, & hopefully clarify some reasons as to why I tried them.

Parallax Adjustment is critical for shooting under 50 yards / 50 metres & upto 100 metres when using higher magnification say 16x. A lot of my accurate shooting is done with a 22 at shorter ranges, thus the Adjustabe Objective (AO) or Side Focus (SF) feature is the main thing I look for aside from the zoom magnification range.

I also assess the magnification to weight ratio, ie, if you can get a little extra zoom for hardly say 25 grams of extra weight, then that scope is worth considering.

Leupold

In most cases Leupold is quite pricy & there are equally nice scopes out there for cheaper.
Bushnell is one such brand that in my opinon has really given Leupold a run for its money.
At the lower end, Mueller seems to have hit the nail too with optics, though I must admit their build quality sometimes isnt enough.

But when you start looking at weight, Leupold scopes seem to be some of the lightest available, & not much else is easily found. I am told this is not necessarily a good thing, because they use lots of thinner aluminium, not one piece steel. Ill document many of the other contenders too.
In my pursuit to find a nice light parallax adjustable scope, I cant help but notice an array of light Leupolds on offer:

Leupold vx2 6-18x40 15.8 oz 447 grams

In my oinion, probably the best compromise of weight to magnification, this one sits on my Tikka & despite much searching, I doubt I will ever find a lighter one. Nice scope, but it wasnt cheap!

Leupold vx-2 ultralight 3-9x33mm EFR - 11.5 oz 326 grams

Note that you need the EFR version which has AO & is heavier than the other ultralight vx-2 3-9x power. The other one does NOT have AO & will appear as 8.8oz, we dont want that.
Lightest scope Ive ever found with AO, but sometimes, at 9 power, more is desirable.

Leupold vx2 4-12x40mm AO - 13.2 oz 373 grams

Lastly, the old favourite on many a 22s, who would have thought this one is probably the best choice when it comes to a compromise between enough magnification & light weight.
Stay clear of the non AO vx-1 model, which is cheaper & lighter.

Bushnell

Though not as light as Leupolds on paper, the Bushnells have made some pretty light scopes. The elite range given their full steel tube & 1000 round 375h&h tested construction are probably great for heavy calibres or bush use.
Heres a list of their best candidates:

Banner 3.5-10x36mm AO - 15 oz 425 grams - cheapest in the lightweight range

I plan to buy this scope soon so should be able to tell you more about it in a month or so when its here from the USA.

I have owned cheap bushnell scopes before as well as the elite & for the price I felt they were really nice, well made products.
Cheap ones had some distortion at the edges of the view, which can be a problem but remember this only happened in their cheapest scope.

The Elite 3200 4-12x40mm Rainguard is a really great scope, but I wont mention it as a lightweight one as there are better contenders in that regard.

Nikon

Top end optics but are usually heavy weight & long eye relief.
The long eye relief has often made Nikon scopes hard to mount of 22s with shorter length of pull due to the usually shorter stocks.
Lots of nice side focus scopes though, so the lighter ones need a mention.

Buckmaster 4.5-14x40 SF

Simmons

Ive thought of Simmons as being one of the first brands to provide excellent value scopes, the good old 8-point with AO were scopes we learnt to shoot using, & to date are serious contenders for beginners.
They possess excellent field of view, much like the Muellers, which really make life harder for the likes of the cheap basic leupolds vx1 or some redfields that cost twice as much.

Master Series ProSport 4-12x40mm AO - 13.8 oz

I would hope this pro sport series has reasonable image quality, but have never used it. Quite an acceptable weight for the price, anyone out there got this scope?

Vortex

I have never had dealings with this brand, but have heard the name recently with some good reviews. None the less, for what I want to achieve, I thin it will be more than adequate.

Diamondback 4-12x40mm AO - 15oz

Huntsman

This is not the BSA huntsman series, but rather a cheap brand that becoming popular in New Zealand.
The huntsmen scope is a ridiculously awesome cheap scope that offers better image qualtiy than you would believe. I have in the past dealt with garbage from NCStar etc only to confirm the obvious, but hey this Huntsman is different. This was the first time a cheap scope could actually be considered as usuable as an expensive one.
Not sure how well the reticle holds up to recoil, but works mint on my 22s, the CZ 452 & the Ruger 10/22.
The 4-12x40mm AO scope fails to disappoint upto the 12x range though.
With most cheapish scopes, it will be crappy at max power for very high magnification options, so maybe a 16x huntsmen is really only a 12x scope, dont know never tried the others.
Give it a try.

Sigma 8-16mm vs Tokina 12-24mm F4 - Ultrawide lens showdown

2013-07-18T02:40:00.000+12:00

The Sigma 8-16mm vs Tokina 12-24mm

8mm focal length is awesome when compared to 12mm, take a look at these sample pics:

Sigma 8-6mm at 8mm - no editing except resizing

Tokina 12-24mm at 12mm - no editing except resizing.

The good:

I love the extra 4mm, it is really brilliant.
Image quality is quite sharp, at par with the well respected Tokina.
Very low distortion for a rectilinear lens, in my opinion beats the Tokina here
Unlike most sigmas, it thankfully focuses quite well!
- Or maybe Im lucky to have a good sample for a change, & my previous sigmas might have been duds... :o
F/3.5 at its widest end provides a slight advantage in low light scenarios, but not by much
Superb close focus distance of only 20cm is really nice for exagerrated perspectives

The bad:

The biggest problem is you cant use Filters at 8mm, at 16mm too its almost impossible & will vignette.
- Forget your ND8 for slow speed shots of water, even a cokin system isnt available yet :(
Non detachable hood, because with the 105 deg picture angle, the lens element has to raise outside themain rim & thus needs basic protection provided by the fixed petal lens hood.
No proper cap, you need to slide the clumsy cover on
- Makes it too long un-necessarily
Heavier than the Tokina, but not too bad for the extra range
Minimum aperture only F/22
- No filters + super low close up focus distance often leaves you wanting more Depth of Field, & F22 sometimes doesnt cut it.
Focus override with the focus ring just doesnt work with many Nikons including the D90.

Tokina 12-24mm:

The good:

Very versatile zoom range up to 24mm
- this can be a one shop architecture destination travel lens because it lets you go up to 24mm when needed.
Constant F4 aperture
- great when you want to take that shot with a person in a scene at 24mm, in available light.
Light weight, easy to carry
- Not as light as a tamron, but good compromise in return for the decent image quality.
Goes down to F32 & allows filters to be used even at 12mm
- Grab your ND & go for some cool slow exposure scenic shots.

The bad:

More distortion in the edges/corners at 12mm than the sigma.
Doesnt go as wide as you might want to, when you think about the 8mm sigma.
Minimum focus distance is around 35 cms, which at 12mm isnt as much perspective exagerration as you sometimes like.
The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is a great lens too, but still, 8mm is hard to beat.
The oder versoin doesnt have an AF motor so screw drive can be a bit noisy, but still fast focus.

Shotshell caddy for 3 gun shoot

2013-05-29T17:10:00.003+12:00

Shotgun Shell Holding Caddy

Check out these cool shotshell holders on trademe

Made by the same KiwiStocks people that make those ruger accessories from my previous article.

Excellent for the price, but they only work with 2 3/4 inch cartridges.
Something to incorporate in the next version Id say.

The clip holds quite well, & being made out of ABS plastic, its much lighter than one would expect.
The inherent flexibility of ABS is a good thing as it stops shell jamming when youre trying to pull them out.

Not a 3 gun shooter myself so only use these for convenience, but would be interesting to know what those who do rapid & timed shoots think about this caddy...

The thing is being in New Zealand there arent a hell of a lot of places you can get these from, & when you do, they cost a hell of a lot more!

Got this one? Any thoughts?

Sako vs Tikka - Is the sako worth the extra?

2013-05-01T02:15:00.001+12:00

Sako vs Tikka - Is the Sako truly better

Both Sako & Tikka have a great reputation, & quite often those that could afford either will just buy a sako & be done with it. Those who cant easily afford it, will need to justify the extra.
Currently, Tikka is less than half the price of a Sako in New Zealand. Im told Tikkas are cheaper here than most of Europe, where the difference is only a few hundred dollars apart, not thousands.

Ive owned both, & would like to share what I believe is the naked truth.

Is the Sako worth twice the Tikka price?

In my opinon, NO, its not. Please see my list of reasons below.
Probably emphasised by the fact that Tikkas are so under-priced here in NZ thanks to Beretta NZ being competitive I guess, but that just means more buying opportunity for us kiwis, we benefit for once! :)

Should you buy a sako even if you could afford it?

This might shock some of you, but, again, in my opinion, NO, get a Tikka & use the rest to buy a good scope, good ammo, get the barrel professionally fluted if you want to, customise your rifle in other ways, etc etc.
Or get 2 tikka rifles! :)

Im not specifically comparing each of the models, but my comments should hopefully help anyone trying to make that all important decision of whether to spend the extra dosh on a Sako or NOT.

So its not about comparing a Varmint to a Hunter to Finnlight to a T3 to a Tactical etc, its more of a general guide on the brand's perceived vs real value in price. Ive never owned the A7 etc so wont comment on them, which though cheaper in price seem to be even more of a waste given I dont quite see what they cost extra for, they look like Tikkas in a Sako stock.

Reasons why I believe Tikka wins over Sako:

1) Identical barrel & chamber quality

The grunt of your accuracy is in the barrel, both Tikka & Sako barrels have the same quality of hammer-forging done in the same factory with the same materials right there in Finland.

2) Bolt face is matched to breech with the same accuracy

The bolt sits to the same 0.01" accuracy for each Tikka or Sako rifle & is factory matched for that particular rifle. So a tikka locks in the cartridge just as well as a Sako.
Yes, a Tikka bolt has more plastic in it, & Sako all metal, but for this so called 'better quality', the Sako is twice the price. If they both shoot the same & pretty much last longer than an average barrel, then would you worry about the plastic in the bolt?
I dont, & it works fine.

3) Identical Trigger assembly

Plastic or metal, the basic trigger assembly is the same. Contrary to opinoin, the trigger breaks just as nicely & I swear if you tried both groups you couldnt tell them apart.

4) Weaver Picatinny style mounts

Generic rings can be used on Tikka rifles, & tikka rings are cheaper. The sako rings cost more & generic rings cant be used on a sako, you have to buy very expensive rings if you need something that your rifle didnt come with. Are the tikkas rings 'bad'? No, they hold fine. The sako rings might be theoretically better, but the point is, they dont actually make any difference, so why pay more?

5) Lighter in weight for the same price

The finnlight is the lightest rifle, & hey well done to Sako, but when you look at your average hunter & varmint models, the Tikkas are actually very light in comparison. So if you wanted something light, you have to buy a Finnlight for Sako, OR a Tikka for half the price!

6) Out of the box grouping guaranteed

The sako's guaranteed grouping is smaller than a Tikka, agreed. But hey, how many brands of ammo have you had to experiment with your rifle to select the ammo that gets you your 'guaranteed grouping'?

Now here is the point:
Until you have found the correct ammunition for your rifle, you cant assess the guaranteed grouping performance of your rifle. So it doesnt matter how badly your rifle shot with the bad shooting ammo, because when you find the rightt ammo, both the rifles shoot equally well.

Arguably, not so favourable ammo would shoot better in the sako than the equally 'not so favourable' ammo would in your Tikka, if that makes sense... which is really impossible for you to ever compare or evaluate.

In my case, I tried 4 ammo brands for my Sako. The Remington shot like crap, at around 2 inches 100 metres. The winchester was aceptable at 1-1.5" with the occassional flyer which was probably me. The Lapua did well with 0.5-1" & Federal did well with the expected consistent 0.5"

For my Tikka, I only had to try 2 brands due to sheer luck, turns out I started with the right brand so I got the rifle to group its best quicker. The Winchester shot 0.5-1" out of a brand new rifle, first 3 shots after bore sighting & I couldnt believe how lucky I was, smack bang easy peezy.

So both my Tikka & my Sako gouped 0.5 inches with their respective ammunition.
Both are capable of grouping better than their so called 'guaranteed grouping'

The Tikka groups just as well as the sako with the right ammo, so how can one justify the Sako as being the better grouping rifle?!?

One might argue the Sako will group better with a wider range of ammunition, I cant be sure of that, it could be true, but how many of us have tried every single brand out there to compare?

Better long distance performance from Sakos, I hear you say. Hmm, well, maybe you have a point there. I havnt tried 600 metres with either but I doubt it will matter because MOA varaince stays constant, it shouldnt matter any more than your own handshake at such long ranges. The wind, the projectile, & your own shooting skills matter more in those cases I think.

7) Better Build quality & longer life ?

Actually, my Sako started rusting & kept rusting in very specific places, before my CZ did. Weird isnt it?! Now its minor rust mind you nothing to worry about, but hey, it happened. Well I tried everything, the whole lubrication, storage space, moisture, cleaning, checking for scratches, no nothing. Internal bore was fine, just the outside had small particles developing rust. Its just the way it was. The tikka didnt rust outside but I could see slight loss of bluing marks, & was told there might be some slight pitting in the barrel. Given both rifles were different calibres & different amounts of use, I agree its not a fair 1 to 1 comparison, but thats not the point.

The point is, the Sakos rust too, & a cheap CZ didnt. If the sako is so damn indestructible, why did it start to rust, you know what I mean... I had not taken it out hunting at that stage, the CZ infact had already been! Dud piece you think, well, ok, lets say its a faulty piece, but then hey what about all that 'consistecy' we get promised, either way its a bit of a shame dont you think ??

8) Good resale value despite cheap price, ie. less overall depreciation

Despite being a cheap rifle, the Tikka holds value incredibly well. I can prove to you with numbers that you are actually financially better off owning a Tikka, should you want to sell it.

Average price for a new Sako is currently NZ$3400. A new Tikka averages $1300.
Used 10 year old Sako in good condition is currently averages $1800.
Used Tikka in good condition around $800.

Depreciation on Sako is close to 50% value & you lost 1600 bucks! With the Tikka, you are only loosing $500.
And here is the kicker, even if Tikka looses its value down to 50% & is worth $650, you still loose $650, & not $1600 - Big Difference aint it! :)

Yes, there are 'differences' between the 2, but is it worth it?

'Differences' dont automatically make something better. It can be better for you for a different reason though. For example, I find the Stainless Synthetic Finnlight to be the most comfortable rifle for my body. The stock is super light, beautiful nice rubberised grip, fits naturally. Barrel balances brilliantly, the length is just right & its just a dream to hold up, like a part of your body.

But how much more comfortable than the Tikka is it for me? Well, not twice as comfortable, so I wont pay twice the price, & then loose half the money if I do choose to sell it!

Yes, if you felt the finnlight was out of this world & everything else was just not close, then by all means go get a finnlight & fork out the cash. But dont be so certain that youre paying for 'a much better rifle', thats my point.

The Tikka is a very capable rifle, & you would be hard pressed to find a better rifle in its price class, in fact, I doubt you will succeed in finding a better rifle than a Tikka for what it offers at its price point.

Please dont think I hate sakos; Im sorry if the post sounded that way, that was not the intention. Im merely trying to make some points in the Tikka's favour. Both rifles are very good, but I feel Tikka offers way more.

Please share your thoughts...

If you have had both, please tell us what do you think worked? Do you agree with my opinion re the Tikka being a better buy, or do you think the Sako at twice the price truly is a better quality rifle for reasons I havnt yet found? Please post your comments here.

Happy Shooting :)

Macro Photography Basics - Part 2

2013-04-10T17:52:00.000+12:00

Macro Photography Part 2

Hello, this is the second half of my blurb on macro photography. If you are familiar with the concept & please read on. If youre a beginner wanting to get a better understanding of the basics, please feel free to read the part 1 of my macro photography article.

In this part, we cover more on Lenses, Accessories, lighting, & basic Techniques around aperture selection, iso, shutter speed etc.

Macro lens vs Front Adapter Rings vs bellows units vs Lens Extension Tubes

So a big question Im asked is, whats the best option.
The fact is that it really depends upon your budget, how much of your photography is macro, & analysing your cost vs benefit, like everything else.

I recommend you start by using the lens reversal idea, see if it sparks an interest, & if it does, go for a cheap macro lens.

Screw on macro adjustment rings:

The screw on front objective rings are great if you want just a little bit of magnification on your average cheap kit 18-55mm lens, but dont expect anything significant.
Be very careful of using these on internal focus lenses lenses where the focal point throughout the focal length. I read a long article on it & got myself confused, but basically, avoid using these little rings on lenses like the popular 18-200mm VR etc. It will not work well at most focal lengths & often have focus errors etc

Macro Extension tubes

Extension pieces come in 2 variants, the cheaper ones that dont support exposure metering/AF, & the more expensive ones that are supposed to support metering.
Increasing the distance between your lens & camera reduces the minimum focus distance thus allowing you to go closer to your subject, simple as that. You can try it out by holding the lens in your hand to get the idea.

I feel that if youre buying extension tubes, you might as well buy ones that support exposure metering, otherwise, why not just use the lens reversing & make do.
In my opinion, no point spending on tubes that dont have metering support.

Saying that, some extension tubes come in sets & can cost about that same as a cheap prime lens.
That brings us to our next idea:

Lens on Lens reversal:

One of the oldest ways to do macro is to take 2 50mm prime lenses & reverse one onto the lens on your camera.
You can just hold the lens, or buy a $20 filter thread objective reversal ring off eBay.
You get full AF & metering.

Best to ick an older style lens that has an aperture so that you can keep the aperture open as big as possible, say f1.8.

It is best to do this on a prime that has no extension of the front objective during focus, otherwise AF will not work.
But even if it is the cheaper type which does extend in & out, the metering is there & you get more magnification from this technique than any tube or lens reversal ring.

But, it potentially is prone to aberration or other optical issues in the picture, distortion, fish eye etc tend to happen. Still not bad though.

I prefer the simple single lens reversal as its more manageable, not too heavy, inexpensive & very good image quality.

How to select a macro lens:

Magnification Ratio - Maximum Reproduction Ratio - How Ratios work:

The terms magnification ratio & maximum reproduction ratio for any lens are the same thing.
Its nothing more than the actual size of the object vs the size it will be when measured on the image sensor.

1:1 means that the image on the sensor will be the same size as the object itself.
1:2 means the image will be half the size.

It is common to confuse the second number & assume that 1:2 means double, it doesnt.
Remember 1:2 means half. You should divide the first number by the second number to get your actual magnification.
Some lens models were more user friendly & stated the magnification as a number like 0.25, or 0.5.
0.5= 1:2 & 0.25 = 1:4, etc

These numbers are listed all along the barrel on a macro len, pretty usually in a similar way as the focus distance numbers. You will usually see them start around 1:10, & then work their way down to 1:1 or so.

What you should look for:

1:1 magnification is considered bare minimum for a 'macro' specification, ie, a lense that will re-produce the image of the object on the sensor thats the same as the real object thats visible in your photo.
But cheaper macro lenses can be 1:2. These are not to be dismissed, & you can screw on an adapter that will bring them to 1:1 performance with minimal image quality change.

You can also connect any of these to a teleconverter, a 2x doubler which also provides a noticible increase in image size.

Digital SLR technology has come a long way, & a good sensor means you can crop & achieve a resultant image size with the crop ratio that will provide you comparable detail to 1:1 magnification or better.

But, do not confuse dslr sensor crop ratio & image cropping manually done as being 1:1 magnification.

This brings us to the next topic on focal lengths.

What focal range & f-stop lens should I buy - 100mm 60mm 40mm 200mm!?

The lesser the focal length, the closer you will need to go to the target subject to achieve the big image size on the sensor. It is important you understand this because it impacts your picture angle & field of view much the same as you would think of in any application of photography.

If you have a very wide macro lens, youre going too close so the parallax of whats behind the object is significant. The narrower lens, the less you need to get closer, so your object may look more uniform.
But then you wont get the effect of feeling 'sucked into' the macro photo.

Get this right, for it will impact every photo you take. There is no right or wrong answer, it just means your images will look a certain way everytime.

My recommendation for macro is that if you want a lense thats macro as well as versatile, then a 60mm is ok. If you want a lens that is really for close up macro, go with at least 100mm.

If you want something for specialist medical photography etc, people use the 200mm all the time. Thats when you need to read an article written by an expert in that field :)
If you want to do specialist macro but are a beginner, I suggest you start with basic macro ideas like those in this article, but then work your way up.

How to start off:

People usually start with the usual suspects, flowers, small insects etc, but really, its whatever captures your fancy.
Having seen my attached photos, some will make you wonder what they are.
You too can try to capture subjects where the viewer would wonder what it is that youve captured!

Common Myths which are incorrect:

Personally, I use 100mm on a DX sensor camera. Again, remember, this doesnt mean that the magnification of my macro lens is 1.5x of the number shown on the barrel, thats incorrect.
The magnification always stays the same no matter what format camera you use with a lens that is compliant to your crop sensor.

Some people like to take a photo at a certain magnification, then crop say 50% worth of the image off, & argue that the results are the same as a lens that would have twice the focal length. In digital, cropping & pixels have opened up the avenue for greater actual image size in pixel, but this must not be confused as being greater macro magnification.

Greater magnification in reality should be measured by how close a lens lets you go to the tinies of subjects, & then how much that tiny subject is magnified.

Enlarging large subjects & getting relative large image sieze is not the point of macro photography.
As I said before, if I take a photo of an animals head with a zoom lens & then crop it so that only the eye is visible, I cant argue that its 2:1 macro magnification, even though there is good resultant magnification, that is NOT macro by any measure.

To conclude, as long as you go close to the subject & take a photo, you are in the macro world.

Thanks for reading :)

Was this tutorial useful, & was it easy to understand?

I write these articles in the hope of them being better than other complex content out there so please let me know if this was useful, or not so that I can make them bettter in the future.

Happy Shooting :)

Macro Photography Basics - Part 1

2013-04-10T17:50:00.001+12:00

The basics of Macro Photography - An introduction

What is Macro:

Macro or Micro, whatever you call it, is about capturing subjects that are small.
Essentially, for something to be classified as a macro photo, the usual impression is that the camera was brought quite close to it.
Though its not mandatory that the lens be in the subjects face, that is what the usual implmentation of macro photography starts off as.

Thats why, if you take a photo from a good distance & then crop it to death, that 'zoom' doesnt necessarily qualify as macro photography.

Forget about zoom, cropping & dslr crop ratio, true macro is about getting your hands dirty with the subject from as close to it as possible in most cases :)

Its about capturing detail that would otherwise be impossible with other techniques or equipment.

How do I start - Macro Equipment

Do I really need a macro lens:

Well folks, the great news is, No, you dont!
You dont need a macro lens, but it makes life easier than using other contraptions.
I recently came across cheap lenses like a Promaster Spectrum 7, which provide excellent image quality for an entry level price.

AF is not always that big a deal. Its nice to have but quite often useless.

f2.8 on a macro lens is practicaly useless for true macro.
With closeup macro photography, your depth of field is already not deep enough, because you're so close to the object that at any given point, almost everything behind the focal plane is significantly out of focus.
So more often than not, you will need to stop down to f10 or lower, even f16, before you get sufficient depth of field to capture details.

Yes, f2.8 lenses are great because you can then use them as your everyday prime lens instead of carrying your other prime lense around, but personally, I would not be overly concerned by a macro lenses maximum aperture.

A good macro lens will give you a sharp precise picture, especially when its closer to the minimum focus distance of the lens.

Macro lenses have very small minimum focus distances usually, ie the closest your lens can be to your subject in focus with average lenses today is around 50cm, with a macro lens, its often close to 5cm. Thats just an example, because back in the old days when most lenses had minimum focus distance of 200cm, a lens with 50cm was considered macro too! How the times change... :)

If not macro lens, then what

My favourite is the lens reversal concept.
Investment cost: 0 You dont need to spend any moey.
Almost every photographer has at least 1 lens that can be reversed & will act like a very simple macro lens.

The best option for that is a 50mm f1.8 type cheap simple prime lens.

For a start, just detach the lens from your camera, turn it around, & hold it against your camera.
Viola!

Yes its manual focus, manual metering, manual everything - welcome to the 1950s.
But hey, its free & works a treat :)

Find macro interesting, please read more in my Macro Photography Part 2 article here.

Was this first part of the article useful, & was it easy to understand?

I write these articles in the hope of them being better than other complex content out there so please let me know if this was useful, or not so that I can make them better in the future.

Happy Shooting :)

3d photo printing with lithopane stereolithography

2013-02-19T19:14:00.001+13:00

How to print 3d photos from plastic

The main idea:

3d printers let you create anything out of plastic, once you have a 3d model for it.
Any photos have bright & dark edges in it. So the idea is to scan that photo & create thicker vs thinner regions of plastic, such that whern printed & light is passed through them, the photo stands out. Once you get the settings right, the results can be pretty cool.

Stuff like this is available on sites like trademe, for example look over here for some practical stuff you can buy.

What you need:

- 3d printer (I use an AM based up! plus 3d printer you can buy from 3d printing systems here)
- White plastic (preferably bright white, colours arent really suited for this stuff)
- Photo2PMesh software

And how the bloody hell do you make it look as good as it should:

Well, not to worry, thats what this post is about.

We cover 2 main areas here., photo 2 mesh software settings, & UP 3d printer quality settings

Please be aware that within reason, each photo will be better with certain specific settings for best effect & what I recommend is not the best for every single photo. but more so a good basic 'default' setting that will do a very good job of most photos you throw at it.

Photo to mesh software settings:

The most important settings are Z height & Mesh height.
My recomendations:
Z Height: 1.5
Mesh Height: 2.5

Up printer quality settings:

The most important thing is to ensure your orientation is set such that the photo is printed vertically on its thin side edge NOT flat straight, else it will fail.

My recommendations:
Resolution: 0.25 (250 micron)
Fill: Least density
Speed: Normal

B&W LM1s as surrounds with 6 series speakers

2013-01-21T02:07:00.000+13:00

Reviewing the LM1s as fronts as well as surrounds

The B&W LM1 may very well be a great starting point for hifi on a budget, but frankly if you're on a budget & want fronts, get the inexpensive B&W 601 S2/S3. Please read my last post here to get some more details on that.

If you want to place them on the wall, direction them, & want a great overall speaker with a tiny foot print that doesnt sound like a tatterbox bose satellite, then the LM1 is probably your best choice.

Its not that the the LM1s wont do a good job as fronts, but the 601 will outperform as its a true full range front bookshelf rather than a small speaker that was basically designed for those that have to work with smaller sapces & cant have its bigger brothers. So LM1 would be your only real choice if you couldnt afford the smaller 686 bookshelf (which I havent owned but have been impressed by)

The LM1 has a few advantages:

1) Easy to mount & orient with built in rotating mount cum stand mechanism

Though its not impossible to buy speaker mounts that can do the same, its just nice to have a speaker that comes with one of these, so that you dont need to make holes or modifications of any kind & can simply find a suitable place to hang them off.
The wall mounts rotate to become stands, so any flat surface is ok, & you can rotate them for a beautiful lineup to the listener ear.

2) Extremely good bass for what is a small speaker

Do not under-estimate this baby. Those small drive units have a fair bit of power. They will like your grunty amp dont you worry, & they will deliver that low end nicely. The mid bass is not as smooth, but the deep end of the bass is superb & clean. Yes, you will need a sub when you get serious, but my point is that this speaker isnt a clatter box tweeter inside a piece of plastic. This is a REAL speaker!
It doent roll-off as nicely with a small sub like the b&w asw608 that I was using, but since I wasnt going to use them for fronts on the long run, it didnt matter too much.

3) Beautiful timbre matching with the new 6 series speakers - even the floor stander 683/684!

Not often will a little bookshelf do justice to a front thats way out of its league. This little bookshelf is a different story. In HT setups, for almost any movie, the LM1 is more than adequate with a well crossed over sub. For hifi music, a bigger bookshelf is slightly better, but not by a lot.
Its nice when your surrounds dont sound a world apart to your fronts & center.

If you can afford it & have the sapce to use the 685/686/601 for surrounds, then they are definitely better, its all about what you can have in the LM1 for its small size.

I havnt yet auditioned the new M-1 & Lm-1 side by side, but I doubt they will be as good at delivering the bottom end. Most people have agreed the M1 is a tatty speaker. I hope it doesnt remind me of something from a typical Sony 5.1 HT in a box stuff.
Do you own a M-1? What do you think? What amp/sub do you use?