EliGEAR.com

I’ve been adventuring - part 3

Ok, time to talk about camera gear.

Like usual, the D90 made an appearance, and performed as I’ve come to expect. I can see how photographers get attached to their cameras - when you use a tool that often, and rely on it that much, you come to respect it. For its features, its durability, and the things it allows you to create.

Surprisingly though, the fisheye only made it out of the bag a couple of times, and only produced one photo that made my final cut. Am I done with that phase, or did this trip just not provide many opportunities to use it? Who knows. But there was a surprising underdog.

My version of the Tamron 28-300mm is so old, I couldn’t even find a decent picture of it. And this link will take you to a review of the stabilized version. I got mine as part of a trade several years ago - it’s not stabilized. And I’ve hardly used it. I’m normally not a fan of superzooms, so this one sat in a box for quite awhile - I brought it along as a backup, but a combination of factors kept it on my camera a lot more than I would have expected. It actually produced better images at long range than my usual telephoto lens, and offered a lot of flexibility without having to swap lenses. It made me reconsider both superzoom lenses, and getting a real telephoto lens, especially if I’m headed back to a national park. As for downsides, well, it’s still a superzoom, which means it’s useless in low-light situations. 28mm isn’t really wide enough for a lot of my photos, and lack of active stabilization makes shots at the 300mm end a little difficult.

The photo in the header here was taken with this old friend.

I’ve had this Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 for a couple of years now, and it rarely lets me down. Something about the layout of the park didn’t look right through the fisheye — it had lots of straight lines and sweeping vistas that I wanted to capture without (much) distortion. The review I linked to mentions only a couple of problems with this lens - inconsistent sharpness (yep) and distortion (yep). I can live with both of these, mostly because this lens was about $400, and the Nikon equivalent is 2-3 times that. It’s a solid performer, and one that I use constantly.

Next: Photos.

Review: Invisible Shield for Nikon D90

A friend of mine had a spare Invisible Shield for the D90, and offered to send it to me. Well hey, I can’t turn down gear to protect my gear. It arrived today, and I set about installing it.

The package includes protectors for the main LCD and top LCD, a sponge with fluid to activate the adhesive, an “installation card” (the plastic card that comes with most screen protectors), a microfiber cloth, and instructions.

The application process on the main LCD went about as well as any screen protector I’ve ever used. The sponge had small pieces of debris on it that invariably ended up under the protector, and I had to remove, clean, and reapply it a couple of times to remove these. After that, it looked pretty good. Hopefully it won’t interfere with the Nikon-provided BM-10 screen protector (it’s still drying).

Update: It does not interfere with the screen protector, and it fits tightly enough that it may prevent dust from becoming trapped in there. That’s pretty cool.

Installation of the protector for the top screen was easier, mostly due to its smaller size. It’s actually pretty useful there too, as that screen isn’t covered by the stock screen protector.

So it’s not a bad product, but it is important to note that Invisible Shield consists basically of advertising and packaging. I know a $0.30 piece of plastic when I see it, and these little appliques definitely fall into that category. For this, and some fabulous packaging, they charge $14.99. And that’s for approximately a 2x2” piece of material. MacBook shields cost upwards of $54.99. LOL, guys, seriously.

On an iPhone or MacBook, one of these would absolutely ruin its aesthetics, and usability on a touchscreen would suffer to a degree I’m not willing to tolerate. Also, I’m only going to say this once, because I’m really tired of repeating it - THE IPHONE HAS A TEMPERED GLASS SCREEN. GLASS SCREENS DO NOT REQUIRE SCREEN PROTECTORS. But the plastic screen on my camera? Sure. Really, I’d put it on anything that’s not a touchscreen and isn’t pretty (sorry, camera).

And then there’s that price. Here’s a list of companies with similar offerings at generally lower prices..

Final score: Point off for price, point off for debris on the sponge, half a point off for being sold in Best Buy and Radio Shack. Two and a half Eli’s for appearing to work as advertised. Also I like the method of application a lot better than the traditional peel-and-stick screen protectors.

I’ll report back in a little while and see how it’s holding up.