A year later, I regret my decision of buying another PC. I now switched to Apple, iMac, iPhone and iPad.

Email: brqyvn@gmail.com

Hi Photographer friends,

Almost one year ago, I was writing about being at the crossroad again. It was time for me to upgrade my equipment. No, I wasn't looking at other camera brands to replace my Pentax equipment. I have been a Pentax user since I was a teenager, and that will never stop...well as long as I'm still kicking. I was looking at upgrading my computer system. I received many comments, all praising their platform of choice. Mac ot PC?

Well...last year, about this same time, I analyzed both systems and opted to go with a PC upgrade because of the cost of moving to the iMac platform.

I should have listened.

I should have listened. Six months ago, I purchased two iPhones, one for me and one for my wife. I was so impressed with the ease of use that I soon follow with the purchase of two iPad 2, again one for me and one for my wife. Apple came up with the iCloud and that made sharing images between all four devices easy and seamless. I produced videos using my iPhone with better results than everything I had ever tried before, and each video post processing took minutes, not hours. That included presentations with video clips, images, title and text, sound track and on some of my projects, voice overdub. Here's one example:

That might not seem like a breakthrough to many, but after trying to put videos together on my PC for over a year, nothing seemed to be easy. My PC would slow down to a crawling speed when using the Adobe video tools such as Adobe Premier Elements, or Sony's video program for PC and a few other. I gave up video as I thought it would be to costly and hard to go through the learning curve.

My main gig is still photography. Of course I use all of the Pentax cameras and their fine lenses. Thus far, on my PC platform, I used Lightroom, from version 1 through version 3. Photoshop and Elements plus a lot of third party plug-ins. I spent about $1,000 and more doing that. Lightroom 3 is a good application...until you try Aperture 3.

So a little over a week ago, I purchased the iMac 21.5" with the Intel i5 quad core processor, one TB hard drive and immediately installed 16 GIG RAM. I also purchased two 1TB G/drive external hard drives. They even look like the iMac design.

They come already formatted for Apple and use the faster FireWire 800, running at up to  800 mbps.  I am using the iMac internal drive for applications only, and G/drives for data. I save all my images and videos to external drive No.1 while I back up the same to G/drive No.2 once a week. I keep the G/drive No.2 at work in case either place would ever burn down or something, I have my images backed up. I don't really trust the online backup companies...here today, gone tomorrow.

Gone are the daily upgrade from Adobe and Microsoft. (Aren't you tired of that?)  Gone are the malware and viruses. So far, they don't affect the Apple platform. When I brought the system home, all I had to do is connect the power cord and I was ready to work within five minutes, including the WiFi setup for my network and WiFi printers as well.

I Installed my $300 Lightroom 3 because it works on both platforms. The installation took about half of an hour. The next day, after playing with iPhoto, I decided that I would immediately do my editing and file management on this iMac and purchase Aperture. Apple calls their compatible software "Apps". You buy them directly from your Apple device and they are automatically installed on all your Apple devices in your system through iTune and pushed to all devices with iCloud. Everything is wireless, including the keyboard and smart mouse. I paid $79.00 for the Aperture app and I was up and running with it in less than 10 minutes. I still have my PC and will keep it  for other tasks (Word, Excel, Power point, etc.). I transferred all my images to the iMac.  I'm in Photography post-processing and image management heaven.

If you made it to here, thank you.  I probably made this blog a little too long. What can I say? I'm very impressed and excited!

We will stop here for now, but I will write a part two and maybe a part three. There is just too much excitement to keep it all to myself. The iMac of today and not the iMac of just a few years ago. They now RULE.

Meet you here in a few days,

Yvon Bourque.

Rumors and rumors...will Pentax introduce a mirorless camera?

Email: brqyvn@gmail.com

Hi Photographer friends,

There are plenty of rumours going around the internet about an upcoming Pentax mirrorless digital camera. First of all, why describing a camera with what it doesn't have, "mirrorless camera" because it doesn't use a mirror? Why not describe a new camera "tiresless" because it doesn't have any tires, "Gazless camera" because it doesn't run on gaz! My opinion doesn't have a lot of influence on naming cameras, but I hope the leading manufacturers will find a suitable and universal name for this new kind of cameras.

The rumors goes on to say that the new Pentax camera model will be the K-01. Frankly, it doesn't matter what the model will be, as long as they don't use the "*" for Starist" like the early Pentax DSLRs.

Again, according to the rumors, it will have the following specifications, and if it does, I will be a happy camper... eh! photographer.

  

1. "921,000 dot" 3-inch, VGA LCD screen from the K-5
2. K-5 image processing and sensor (16.3 Mp)
3. 1080p HD video at 30fps
4. 1/4000s-30s shutter speed range
5. Contrast-detect autofocus (81 metering points)
6. Built-in flash
7. 12.1cm wide x 7.9cm high x 5.9 cm deep
8. 560g loaded with battery
9. New DA 40mm kit lens
10. Available in 3 lens kits
11. 3 different colors
12. Electronic viewfinder

Pentax is in the best position in the industry to introduce such cameras because of their line of limited lenses. I once blogged here about what a Pentax camera could look like.  I can just imagine a Pentax "Hybrid" camera, with the K-5 sensor, maybe a 3" LCD screen that rotates and an included or optional EVF equivalent to what the Sony NX7 uses. That would be the perfect camera for me, especially for travelling.

One clear advantage would be the number of frames per second, since no mechanical parts have to move, and Auto Focus in all modes, making videography simple. More importantly, all my current lenses would fit and my Limited lenses would be happy.

This is not a real camera. It is what an Hybrid camera from Pentax could look like, based on their old partner "Samsung" model, my imagination and PhotoShop.

 Thanks for reading and may the good lighting be with you,

Yvon Bourque

When will Digital Camera Manufacturers stop comparing lenses of various format to 135 (35mm defunt format cameras)?

Email: brqyvn@gmail.com

Hi Photographer friends,

For years now, we have been buying lenses that are designed to a certain focal length, (say a 50mm lens) but when used on a digital camera, with a smaller sensor than the old 35mm film camera standard (24mm x 36mm), we are told that with a multiplying factor our new lens will have a different equivalent in 135 /35mm format. i.e. a 50mm lens attached to an APS-C digital camera with a sensor having a 1.5 multiplier will be equivalent to a 75mm lens.

A 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens in terms of focal length, and the perspective is always that of a 50mm lens no matter what camera it is attached to. I think it's time to drop the equivalency to the old 35mm film cameras and stop confusing entry-level photographers.

Assuming that you are already aware of the crop factor and 35mm format equivalency, and without going to a lot of explanation about it, (learn about the crop factor here  and here if you are not familiar with it or just Google it), the final true result is really the angle of view. 

During the film era, various format existed. There were the 35mm cameras, the medium formats (6 x 6, 6 x 4.5, view cameras in 4 x 5, 5 x 7, 8 x 10, etc.  Nobody ever used conversion factors to describe what a medium format lens would be equal to in 35mm cameras.

When the first Digital SLR cameras began to appear, manufacturer opted to use 35mm bodies and lenses, ( good economic decision but stupid photographic decision). The problem was that technology of the time only had developed sensors were much smaller than a 35mm film plane, hence the birth of the crop factor and equivalency to 35mm film cameras format.

Most young photographers don't know much about the old 35mm film cameras and they don't care. All   they know, or need to know,  is what a particular lens of a particular focal length  looks like when viewed through  their own digital camera viewfinder. That comes with minimal usage and experience. Once they know, they will be able to understand and pre-visualize what and when to use a particular lens on their camera.

It becomes even more ridiculous when describing a digital camera, having a sensor of the same size of the old 35mm film camera (24mm x 36mm), as a full frame camera. Hello! All camera are really full frame in their own format. Think about the Pentax 645D or the Leica s2. Should we call them super full frame or describe their lenses as a equivalent in 35mm format?

So I say... just continue making and sell lenses with their correct focal length stamped on but let the users figure out what they will be like on their particular cameras. It would be a short transition, but this equivalency is nuts. Lens are indeed labelled correctly, but described as equivalent to 35mm in magazines, camera manuals, advertisement, on the internet, etc. Please just stop the conversion factor. It all about what you see in your viewfinder.

When you look at an object, you likely can tell  its size fairly accurately. For example,  If you live in the U.S. you could visualize an object and recognize it as being about 1" inch long. You wouldn't have to know its metric equivalent, would you? The opposite is true if you live in a region that uses the metric system. Why using an equivalency with lenses and cameras?

Thanks for reading,

May the good lighting be with you,

Yvon Bourque

Email: brqyvn@gmail.com

Hi Photographer friends,

Check this link from our friend Miserere at Enticing the light.

How expensive were the Pentax SLR cameras and lenses in 1972?

Email: brqyvn@gmail.com

 Hi Photographer friends,

Just a few days ago, I wrote an article about "One Camera and one Lens".  I received the following email 

from Fred Frederiksen	6:05 AM (13 hours ago)

Hi Yvon,  

I just recently came across your Pentax DSLRs Blog Spot and quite enjoy it.  Your most recent article on lens costs is interesting

I thought some of our readers would enjoy this. Keep in mind that the prices in Canada were probably higher than in the United States. If the same prices could only still be current today, what a collection I would have. But yet, "One Camera and one Lens" would still apply, wouldn't it?

Thank you for stopping by and reading.

May the good lighting be with you,

Yvon Bourque, and as a long time Pentaxian I happen to have some early Canadian Pentax brochures from the 1970s. I'm attaching two files (these brochures were printed on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper and folded in thirds), front and back, for the 1972 brochure. You might find this useful in the context of how equipment costs have changed over time. In any case, feel free to use the images as you see fit.

All the best,

24-hour quiet period to raise awareness about internet freedoms - 1001 Noisy Cameras

24-hour quiet period to raise awareness about internet freedoms - 1001 Noisy Cameras

Email: brqyvn@gmail.com

Dear followers and readers. Every time a new law is passed under the pretext of protecting our rights, we end up losing some of our freedom. I hope that the ability of our government to monitor and censored what they don't like will not come to past.

"One camera one Lens" It might be more applicable now than ever before..

Email: brqyvn@gmail.com

The "One Camera, One Lens" applies for all makes, Pentax, Canon, Nikon, you name it. I own Pentax equipment and therefore I show Pentax equipment on this blog.

Hi Photographer friends,

Have you compared  2012 prices of lenses to just a few years ago? Lenses have become more expensive than ever. I believe that the ratio of camera$ / lens$ prices is out of control.

We used to say that the camera bodies were replaceable every-so-often, but that lenses were an investment for life. I don't think that holds true anymore. The sensors are so advanced now, that they often outresolve the lenses, especially the older lenses. So maybe lenses are not a lifetime investment anymore.

In addition, manufacturers are making us believe that, to be a good photographer, we need an arsenal of lenses that we couldn't possibly bring to all of our photo shoots even if we wanted to. Some preach that prime lenses are the only quality lenses one should use, while other recognize that today's zoom lenses are far better than the old school zooms. The reality is that everybody is right, (regarding primes or zooms)  but we don't all have a bank account that allows us to purchase all we want. Most of us have a bank accounts that allows us to  purchase what we need and maybe a little of what we want.

If you want to become a better photographer, all the lenses in the world won't do you much good if you don't learn how to use them efficiently and wisely. An extreme zoom lens or telephoto will bring a far away object in the viewfinder, but the perspective will be all screwed up. It's the same for a wide angle lens, you may catch the scene almost behind you, but the perspective will also be screwed up.

Try to get acquainted with each of your lens, and practice a lot. In most situations, a normal lens (that is a lens that shows you the scene about the same as what your eyes normally see)  will render the best quality images. For an APS-C DSLR, 28 - 30 mm lens is a normal lens, for what we now call "Full Frame", a 45 - 50 mm is a normal lens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens

Film/Sensor format	Image dimensions	Image diagonal	Normal lens focal length
9.5 mm	8 × 11 mm	13.6 mm	15 mm
Half-frame	24 × 18 mm	30 mm	30 mm
APS-C	16.7 × 25.1 mm	30.1 mm	28 mm, 30 mm
135- 35mm (Full Frame)	24 × 36 mm	43.3 mm	45 mm, 50 mm
6 × 4.5 (645)	56 × 42 mm	71.8 mm	75 mm
6 × 6	56 × 56 mm	79.2 mm	80 mm
, 6 × 7	56 × 68 mm	88.1 mm	90 mm
6 × 9	56 × 84 mm	101.0 mm	105 mm
6 × 12	56 × 112 mm	125.0 mm	120 mm
Large Format 4 × 5	93 × 118 mm (image area)	150.2 mm	150 mm
Large 5 × 7	120 × 170 mm (image area)	208.0 mm	210 mm
Large Format 8 × 10	194 × 245 mm (image area)	312.5 mm	300 mm

Only after you master photography with a normal lens, should you venture into the Wide Angle, Telephoto and Zoom lenses. Okay...you don't have to, but it would make you a better photographer in the long run.

Even if you currently have an arsenal of lenses, maybe you should spend some time practicing with a normal lens. It's the old adage "One camera, One lens". Most of today's photographers seem to have forgotten the correct usage of each lens. We see photographers stand at the same position and change the angle of view (zoom lenses).  This changes the coverage area without a corresponding change in perspective. Perspective changes not because of the focal length, but due to the position of the lens in relation to the subject. Changing to a normal lens and changing the position of the camera can drastically change the perspective. The "One camera, One lens" teaches you to use your legs (instead of zooming from one position), and puts you,  the camera and the lens in the most appropriate position to obtain the natural perspective. Once you try and practice this, you will get to know each of your lens intimately and will be a better photographer because of it...and who knows what other photographic opportunities will be discovered by walking closer or farther to your subject.

May the light be working with you :)

Thanks for reading,

Yvon Bourque

Pentax cameras poster, 1952 to 2011

Email: brqyvn@gmail.com

 Hi Photographer friends,

Thank you to Dirk Lorenzen for sending us this poster.

Front or Back Focusing Problems? Free test (Lens Alignment) charts for Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus.

Email: brqyvn@gmail.com


 Hi Photographer friends,

Autofocus Fine Adjustment

Did you experience front or back focusing problems? Hopefully your camera model has a built-in adjustment, otherwise, you may have to send your equipment back to the manufacturer.

 Back and Front Focusing Problems, and how to test your lenses / Cameras.

I personally never had any auto-focusing problem with any lens or camera I ever owned. It seems that these days, members of every blog and forum sites are talking about checking and adjusting the auto-focus on their lenses or DSLR. I think there is a perception that many lenses or DSLR cameras are having front or rear focus problems. In reality, I am inclined to think that inexperienced photographers, “Pixels Peepers”, and inquisitive hobbyists, influenced by the available internet information, are finding problems where there are none. If a particular lens consistently gives out-of-focus results, when all other lenses used with the same DSLR are okay, you might have a focusing problem with that particular lens. If most of the pictures taken with the same DSLR, but with various lenses, are out-of-focus, you might have a DSLR camera-focusing problem.

If you think there is a focusing problem, several "Free" auto-focus testing charts are available from forums, blogsites and websites. I probably downloaded most of them and found inaccuracies with all of them. They are either too small, or too cluttered, or have measurements that are not to scale, etc. Some charts are available for purchase but I find that the prices are way too much. 

Back or front focusing problems are more notorious with subjects that are within a shallow depth of field, such as macro pictures or selective focusing pictures, and with the lens used at its widest aperture. The following three images illustrate this. The middle picture is the way it should be as the cat’s eye was the focusing target. The picture on the left shows a front-focusing problem, and the picture to the right shows a back-focusing problem.

That alone would not mean that the lens or camera has a focusing problem, it could be the photographer’s error. However, similar results time after time could be the first hint that you might have a focusing problem. Perhaps a logical next step would be to test the lens in question under a controlled environment. A controlled environment could be where there is no wind, with the camera set on a tripod, and with good lighting. An auto-focus testing chart could be used, preferably one approved by the manufacturer if they have one available.

Solution

I do not believe that manufacturers have an AF checking chart available to the public. That is the primary reason I took it upon myself to design one. After reading every blog and information about the subject on the internet, after reading comments from the readers of my blog site and threads on various forums, I deducted that one chart could not do it all. Three charts were designed because the minimum focusing distance varies from lens to lens. The smaller chart (Chart–1) works well for close-up lenses and lenses that have macro capabilities. The medium sized chart, (Chart-2) works well for normal lenses, say 30mm to 100mm, which have a minimum focus distance needing a target a little bigger than Chart-1. The third chart (Chart-3) is for lenses that cannot focus very close. One could keep enlarging the last chart, but I believe that the three charts attached herein will be functional for the majority of lenses.

There are various opinions whether a chart should be viewed at 45° from the lens centerline axis, or at 30°, or any angle or even flat. The reality is that it should work at any angle between 1° and 99°, but 45° is the easiest to read. Chart-1 and Chart-2 were design for viewing at 45° from the lens’ centerline axis. The measurements on the viewing surface were corrected for accurate reading when viewed at a 45° angle. The Charts could have been designed for viewing at 30°, giving more viewable depth of field for both front and back. However, I opted for the 45° because the charts could fit on a 8 ½” x 11” standard sheet of paper (Letter size).

I chose a circular focusing area. The bottom half is black and the top half is white. When viewed perpendicularly or flat, it has an oval shape, because the chart is meant to be viewed at 45°. When viewed at 45°, the focusing area appears as a perfect circle. That also helps verifying that the lens is at a 45° angle. "Simple geometry"

Camera Settings

Set the camera to:
* -Autofocus single.
* -Leave the Shake Reduction off if you use a tripod (recommended).
* -Use the Aperture Priority mode.
* -Set the lens aperture to its maximum.
* -Set the AF point to center.
* -Use a remote for the shutter release or use the camera timer to avoid any      movement.

The two smaller charts were designed so that they can be cut and taped together in a way that they can stand at a 45° angle when placed on a table, desk, or flat surface. The camera / lens is then leveled and preferably positioned on a tripod so that the lens’ centerline is aligned with the center of the chart. Place the lens as close as you can to the center of the chart target while it can still focus on the intersection of the black / white section, then back it off just a little. Position the large chart flat (horizontally) and the camera / lens angled at 45° from the chart.

After choosing the chart that will work best with your lens, and once the chart and camera / lens are position correctly, start by trying to focus on the white area of the chart. The lens should not be able to focus correctly and it should be “hunting”. If it achieves focus while pointing to the middle of the white area, it means you could actually be in focus with the lines surrounding the white area and you need to use the next larger chart.

Next, move the camera / lens angle slowly downward until it auto focuses. At that point, you know that you are focused on the intersection of the black / white portion of the chart. That is the center of the chart. The measurements (Metric on the left and English on the right) are at zero on both sides of the chart horizontal centerline. Take the picture and look at the results. The center target line (00) should be perfectly clear while the top and bottom target lines and text should get increasingly and proportionally out of focus. The top target lines represent the back focus area while the bottom target lines represent the front focus area. Repeat this test several times to make sure you have done the test correctly. If the center target line is in focus, but the front and back target lines are not proportionally getting out of focus, there shouldn’t be any serious problems with the lens. Remember that this test is done with the lens opened at the maximum aperture and that the depth of field will increase with smaller aperture. Most of the lenses have a “sweet spot which is usually 1 to 2 stop smaller than the maximum aperture. Therefore, you should only be concerned if the center target line is not in perfect focus while either the back or front lines are.

Understand The Results

Image A: The perfect lens should return a result similar to the image above. 

Image B:  Acceptable Focusing  

Image C:  Back Focusing Problem

Image D:  Front Focusing Problem

A lens with acceptable Auto Focus should have the center target line in focus, even if the back and front focus lines are not equally or proportionally out of focus. Image B
A lens with back focus problems will look like Image C, while a lens with front focus problems will look like the  Image D

 Word About Auto Focus Sensors

Sensors are either vertical, horizontal or cross type. Most DSLRs now use cross type sensors, check your camera manual. Vertical sensors detect the sharpest horizontal contrast within its area of coverage and lock the focus on that point. Alternatively, the horizontal sensors detect the sharpest vertical contrast within its area of coverage and lock the focus on that point. You guessed it; the cross type sensors detect the highest vertical or horizontal contrast and lock the focus on that point. Since we use the center focus point of our camera, which is usually a cross type sensor, our chart was deliberately designed without any vertical lines in the center so that the focus can only lock at the intersection of the black and white portion of our target. Note that in your viewfinder, you should see an illuminated point showing the focus point. The cross sensor is not necessarily dead center and in perfect alignment with the illuminated focus point. It merely shows you the area of the sensor, but is not an exact focus point and the sensor will only lock on the point of maximum contrast.

Difference Between 45° And 30° Charts

The above charts, one at 45° and one at 30°, illustrates why the depth of field is proportional to the angle of the chart.

These charts will give the same results regardless of of what camera brand you use. However, at the time of design, I was using a Pentax K-5 and the following depicts how to adjust the front/back focus on the K-5.

Refer you your camera user manual for more information on how to adjust your camera specific model.



The K-5  Custom Setting Number 26

In the Custom Setting menu, navigate with the four-way controller to AF Fine Adjustment, Setting number 26 ►.

                                                                                                    Use  ▲ ▼ to turn the AF Adjustment On or Off. When choosing On, press ► and select if you want to adjust the lens attached or all the lenses ▲ ▼. Choosing Apply One  would  correct the current lens attached and would keep the results in memory. Choosing Apply All would apply the corrections to all lenses mounted on the camera. The camera can retain settings for up to 20 different lenses. Using the rear rotary dial, you can adjust the values from minus (-1) to minus (-10) and plus (+1) to plus (+10). You can reset the camera to the factory defaults anytime by navigating down ▼ to Reset and confirm Reset.

Disclaimer

Although the Charts have given me good results, you should fully understand how they help analyzing the Auto Focus accuracy. Read the above paragraphs several times until you completely grasp the procedures. You can adjust the focus of all Pentax lenses, as they are non-permanent changes. You can reset the Auto Focus to factory defaults at any time. As for the other Pentax camera models that do not have the “AF Fine Adjustment”, you should only have a Pentax trained technician adjust the Auto Focus of your lenses or DSLR cameras.

Download the charts here: AF CHARTS 

Print the charts on your own printer for the best quality possible. It is best to print on heavy mat paper.

Nikon announces their new Flagship, the D4. Only 16.2 megapixels. What's the message here?

Email: brqyvn@gmail.com

Hi Photographer friends,

Nikon just announced their new flagship DSLR, the D4.  I'm a Pentax user and why do I post this announcement about Nikon? Check the D4 on B&H Photo.

This new announcement from Nikon sends a clear message...to me anyway. They are using the FX sensor for this camera. but it's only 16.2 MP. This is a clear message that the Full Frame megapixels sensors are over-rated. Technology has come a long way and APS-C sensors are capable of taking better images than what our eyes can see. This full frame non-sense was the way manufacturers got away cheap by making the old 35mm film format the defacto standard of what full frame should be and a way to reuse the 35mm format lenses.

Every sensor is a full frame sensor, it's the lenses used that are not matching the sensor. Nikon has chosen a 16.2 megapixel CMOS sensor. 16.2 megapixels is good enough for 99% + of the time and produces file sizes easily manipulated with today's computers for post-processing.

Pentax is the smartest camera maker out there. They use APC-C sensors or Medium format like the 645D. They were ridiculed for making color camera bodies, but now the entire industry does. They designed the "Q" and once again ridiculed, but Nikon copied the concept immediately.

Long live Pentax :)

Trey Ratcliff proclaims the upcoming Death of DSLRs - 1001 Noisy Cameras

Trey Ratcliff proclaims the upcoming Death of DSLRs - 1001 Noisy Cameras

Email: brqyvn@gmail.com

Hi Photographer friends,


Must read. Great find 1001 Noisy Cameras.

New Year's resolutions

Email: brqyvn@gmail.com

Hi Photographer friends,

Happy New Year to everyone. I haven't posted anything since last year, but I'm back. That was a long week ago.

It's new year's resolutions time;

I think this year, I'm going to get back to taking more pictures. After-all, that's what I really like to do. I'm not going to abandon this blogsite, and I won't stop writing e-books either. What I will stop doing is trying to develop new products like the "Stabilizers" I introduced to the market last year. New equipment is so expensive to develop, having it patented, marketing it and establishing the infrastructure... and so on. I did all the  preceding steps for the Stabilizers, and although I sold hundreds of them, I'm still under by a several thousands of dollars. At least, I tried.

You all know that I am a hardcore Pentaxian, and I will continue using their fine cameras and lenses until I can't hold a camera anymore.  However, this coming year, I will write more e-books and maybe for more than just Pentax cameras. I will venture into the Ricoh cameras, Nikon and Canon brands and maybe Sony.  My e-books have been very successful with Pentax DSLRs users, and I think it's time I publish my e-books "Everything you need to know...and then some" to a broader audience. I will publish my next e-books on this blogsite as well as on Amazon and perhaps through Apple. The format will remain basically the same. The user's manual tell you what the camera can do and my e-books tells you how to do it, in a non-technical way.

Last year, I started my "Keeper or Dud?" series and it's turning out that it takes a lot of time and work to follow up everyday.  If you like the "Keeper or Dud?", let me know by using the comment section below this post, or email me. I also post a mirror of this blog on Google+, Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading,

Yvon Bourque