First photos from The Hague

I adore The Hague. I'm not much of a city slicker myself, but I think the ideal Nathanopolis would look a lot like this place.

That said, I find it difficult to capture exactly what enthralls me about the town in pictures. No one could fault The Hague for being unphotogenic - it probably comes down to me lacking inspiration and experience in street photography. Actual touristy photos of statues and buildings and suits of armor and stuff will have to wait until I learn how to pull that off.

In any case, what currently interests me about Den Haag isn't just the rich history or intriguing architecture or whatever proper tourists are after - it's the way people get around.

Just like you can guess someone's overall health based on their cardiovascular fitness, I think you can judge a city based on how quickly, cheaply, easily and safely its inhabitants can move throughout its arterial streets, sidewalks, alleyways and tram lines. The Dutch nailed it. You can get almost anywhere using almost anything. Bicycle to work on nice days, take the tram when it's raining ice, walk wherever you want and get there in under an hour, take a train to another European wonderworld...I've never experienced such flexibility anywhere I've lived - not England, not New Jersey, and (duh) not Texas. Naturally, one of my first purchases when I got off the plane was the Dutch equivalent of the Ford F150 - a bicycle.

View fullsize

She's not much to look at (or to ride) - an old Gazelle with a steel frame, 3 speeds, and drum brakes that are occasionally sufficient. The ride is exactly as smooth as whatever road you're on - there's no suspension at all - and the seat is uncomfortable by design, perhaps to encourage would-be thieves to look elsewhere. It's the worst bike I've ridden, for sure.

But I love this thing. Because of all the bike lanes (and their sacredness), bicycles in The Hague represent freedom go to anywhere - work, home, shopping, touring, whatever - for free, and to get fit while doing it. Even if you're a fan of sophisticated organic junkfood and beer, which - rejoice - is totally a thing down here.

View fullsize

Bicyclists have no fear 'round these parts, they rule the world. It's not uncommon to see a father speeding along in the wet running a red light to go the wrong way down the road, with one daughter on the handlebars and one in a backpack - all three without helmets.

Where else do bicycles ring their bells in annoyance at enroaching Aston Martins? Nowhere, that's where.

View fullsize

People don't put up signs outside their establishments, they just park decorated bikes out front. This one is outside De Galerie, Den Haag:

View fullsize

A few dozen meters (hee! meters!) down the road is Lola Bikes and Coffee. They sell all kinds of charmingly whacky two-wheeled creations that hang on the walls, giving you conversation material with your buddies so you don't have to spend your coffee break scrolling through Tumblr (they don't even have wifi - and they don't need it).

I have two big resolutions while I'm here: Learn Mandarin while taking public transport, and get fit while biking everywhere else.

Another lofty goal is not eating everything in the window below:

View fullsize

Window shopping around here is dangerous - luxury watches that I had only heard legends about in the US are on proud window display. The dollar is going to need to be worth about 4-5 euros before I can take the plunge and still be able to eat.

View fullsize

In this area, the Europeans and I seem to have very similar taste, but very different budgets.

View fullsize

View fullsize

I would have given up an entire semester of basket weaving in exchange for a 6-week course in dressing business casual. Before departing Houston, I picked up two suitcases worth of new duds that I think are ever so slightly more "casual" than "business". At least I never run out of weekend outfits.

Here's my office - it's this butterfly/H shaped building on the opposite side of The Hague from the seaside town of Scheveningen where my apartment is.

View fullsize

I'm not sure about the purpose of the skeletal frame is surrounding the elevated tramline nearby. Aesthetics? Noise containment?

View fullsize

As I said before...real tourism photos to come.

Cool concept - a little camera called "Light"

This is the first time I can remember clicking on an ad and being pleasantly surprised by what was on the other side - this goofy-lookin' thing:

http://light.co/camera

My understanding is it's 16 small lenses and image sensors stuffed into one pocketable device. Up to 10 of those...sub-cameras?...take a picture when you hit the shutter. After the fact, you use software to choose from and/or combine the images - sort of like sequential HDR, but simultaneous and across multiple parameters like exposure, focal length, aperture etc. That's really neat!

You can read all the good stuff about it at light.co. Me, I have a few reservations:

1. Price is $1,699 (minus a $400 discount for preorders). That's full-frame DSLR territory. I try not to spend that much on things I could easily put through the wash.

2. Sport shooting. They haven't unveiled how many frames per second this camera will take or how fast the shutter (shutters?) will be.

3. Low-light performance. Getting a large number of small sensors with different lenses to capture light in a seamless manner, like a large sensor can, sounds like a big technical hurdle to me, and the result might look really weird.

4. Resolution/file size/storage. On their website they say the camera might capture up to 130 megapixels at one time, but they don't give the resolution of the individual sensors. RAW images are typically around 1MB per megapixel, I believe. Their current spec says they're packing 128GB of built-in storage to the camera, which is a lot, but doesn't appear to be expandable. If my math is right, this means you should be able to store at least ~1,000 images on the camera, which isn't too bad for day-to-day use but won't cut it on a longer vacation with no computer.

5. No interchangeable lenses, so if you don't like the 16 you have on there...well, too bad. How are you going to keep scratches off all them little spider-eyes?

In short, this is an amazing concept - whether it's any good or not will depend entirely on execution.

I'm watchin'.

Sony Alpha 6000 Review for Non-Photography Folk

A relative asked me how I liked my Sony Alpha 6000 digital camera. I like it a lot, for many reasons! Instead of trying to talk really fast, I’m compiling my thoughts here.

So - what is the A6000? Let’s start with the lens format. This is an E mount camera, compatible with any E mount lens. The ability to swap lenses is why it's better than your iPhone.

Most cameras with interchangeable lenses are DSLRs. A DSLR has a mirror inside that enables an optical viewfinder. However, the A6000, along with every E mount camera, is mirrorless, so there’s no optical viewfinder - just a digital one. This isn't a big deal for most people.

View fullsize

This picture (taken with a Canon T3i) shows how compact the A6000 really is

What matters is this: The omission of a mirror makes the camera cheap and compact. Depending on the lens, you can probably cram an A6000 in your coat pocket. Plus, the design has fewer moving parts - ideal for reliability.

View fullsize

35mm, 1/640 at f/2.0

You know what else is handy? Reallydamnfastshooting (11 shots per second) and continuous autofocus to follow your subject mid-pounce. Sony says it's the fastest autofocus in the business, and I believe them. The video mode is top-notch, but who needs it when you can take 11 still shots per second?

Shooting at 11fps is ideal for capturing "the" moment...

...and 10 other moments every second that you don't really care about.

Mastering the shooting modes is simple. The interface is intuitive, even though the buttons are cramped on the small body. What you hold feels extremely well put-together. Small details - machined metal surfaces, engraved lettering - are nice touches on the attractive design. The camera presents like a miniaturized DSLR, eschewing plasticky cost-cutting measures that plague most mirrorless competitors.

View fullsize

Pictured with the E mount 50mm f1.8 mounted, plus the 55-210mm f4.5-6.3 and 35mm f1.8 - all with Sony's superb OSS stabilization.

Cheap, convenient, capable and easy to use…what’s the catch? Well, the APS-C image sensor here (much like most DSLRs under $1,500) is 33% smaller than that of a full-frame DSLR. This means the A6000 will capture less light light and only 66% of the field of view that a professional-grade DSLR would, ceteris paribus. For any lens you buy, multiply the focal length by 1.5x to get what you can expect from the A6000’s cropped sensor (e.g. a 50mm on the APS-C will give you the same FOV as a 75mm on a full-frame DSLR). Whether the reduced light and FOV will bother you depends on how pro you want to get, particularly in low light.

How do you offset that disadvantage? I’m able to solve most low-light problems by removing the lens cap. Beyond that, be sure to pick the right lens for the job. I think the bundled master-of-no-trades lens greatly limits the A6000. Get the camera body alone, then pick a lens that suits your style.

The first lens I bought was Sony’s 55-210mm zoom. 210 x 1.5 = 315mm, which is a lot of zoom! You can capture faraway subjects, or dramatize your outdoor portraits by making the background look huge.

The second lens I bought is my walkabout - Sony's 35mm 1.8f fast prime. It’s not cheap, but it’s versatile and compact. Don't worry about the lack of adjustable zoom - with 24 megapixels, you have plenty of resolution to crop if you need to. I used this lens for most of my Washington vacation photos.

For portraits, I picked up a Sony 50mm 1.8f, another fast prime. If you can get space between you and your subject, this lens can save you big money over the 35mm. I haven't had a chance to use it a lot so far - "at home" pictures will have to do. Pets are always willing test subjects.

Albertine and I briefly compared the A6000 and her Canon Rebel T3i - a comparably priced but more traditional crop sensor DSLR.

For the Sony:

• Faster focusing and shooting
• Easier to carry and faster to whip out of a smaller bag
• Better video
• Blobbier bokeh
• Better dynamic range (more detail in extreme light/dark)

For the Canon:

• Cheaper and more readily available lenses
• Edgier bokeh
• Optical viewfinder
• Looks more legit

If you're doing action shots, there's no contest - Sony takes your cake. If you're doing more portrait-y stuff, it's not as clear. Here are some test shots with comparable lenses - the Sony had a 35mm f1.8 while the T3i was fitted with a 40mm f1.8. I threw in a couple shots with Albertine's new 6D (50mm f1.8) as well...though that shouldn't be a fair contest.

Most minute differences in color between the cameras could be ironed out in Lightroom. The T3i seems more ~dramatic~ in how color seems to bleed through the image. It shoots nostalgic photographs right out of the box. To get the same inspired effect, the Sony requires some Lightroom magickery. The 6D, being a full-frame DSLR, captures more light than the other two - but using the 50mm lens that was designed for crop sensors on it leads to some blur around the edges.

Of course there's more to image quality than that - you can find other websites if you want to zoom in on split hairs. Overall, I'd say the image quality of the Sony punches above its price point with accurate (if not dramatic) color and superb sharpness.

Of course there’s crap I don't like about it too.

First of all - E mount lenses are expensive. They're high quality, but it’s disappointing there aren’t more entry-level lenses that could get the job done.

Secondly - if you’re an aspiring semi-pro, nobody will take you seriously with a camera this small. This doesn’t bother me, but it’s something to consider if you’re trying to send a professional signal to clients.

Thirdly - as we alluded to earlier, the APS-C crop sensor means less light, all else equal. It's better than my old Micro Four-Thirds Lumix and worlds better than a typical point-and-shoot, but don't expect beautiful, creamy portraits at night. Left to its own devices, the little Sony will compensate by pumping up the ISO and/or exposure. You'll have to pick your poison between graininess or motion blur.

Fourthly - say you get hooked, and you want to purchase a full-frame body for better low-light/indoor performance. With a typical DSLR from Canon or Nikon, you can keep using your existing lenses and just upgrade the camera body (probably keeping the old body as a spare). Not so easy with E mount. While Sony's full-frame (A7) is physically compatible with E mount lenses, it needs fancier FE format lenses to leverage the enlarged sensor, and those cost big money over the E mount lenses you've already accumulated. You could just use the FE lenses on your A6000 to begin with, but they add cost and bulk over the standard E mount kits.

Finally - startup and memory card access speeds are not especially quick compared to all the other functions on the camera. They’re not terribly slow - just not as fast as I’d like for it to be the ultimate “holy-cow-it’s-a-whale” camera. ("holy-whale-it's-a-cow", maybe)

In summary: It's hard to find better image quality at this price point, let alone this portability factor. It's a fast, fun, willing companion that you can carry just about anywhere. Just be ready to pony up for the right lens, and steal your friend's full-frame DSLR when you need to work in low light.

Long-term review: 2008 (and later) Yamaha WR250R

Moto reviews are all the same. Manufacturers fly magazine editors out to some far-flung exotic location, greeting them at the gate with artisan beer before whisking them off to a comfy resort overnight. The next morning, the bikes are lined up, ready to ride, and the reviewers spend a day or two riding terrain that can only be described as ideal. At the end of the ride, the tired editors hand the dirty, abused bikes back, and then they fly away to write their riding impressions. The result: Every review is a summary of what you can expect from a bike on its best day in its favorite sandbox. Since bikes are all about compromise, lots of things that make them great on their best day - e.g. power, mass, comfort, sex appeal - work against them on the not-so-great days. In my opinion, every motorcycle review should be a long-term review and with that, let's talk about the dual-sport I've had for the last 3 years: Yamaha's WR250R.

First - cold, hard numbers: It costs $6,690 new (used examples go for $3,000-$5,000), it weighs 295lbs with a full tank and the seat is 36.6" high. It's powered by a water-cooled, fuel-injected 250cc single that puts out 24hp and gets more than 70mpg.

Though it looks and rides like a slightly pudgy dirtbike, Yamaha claims you can go 3,000mi between oil changes and 26,600mi between valve clearance checks. That's an incredible distance for a sub-300lb thumper. Yamaha's aggressive claims are substantiated by the experiences of many accomplished riders such as BigDog, who have covered tens of thousands of miles on cross-continental journeys using their WRRs. Make no mistake - this is as dependable and easy to maintain as motorcycles get. While you might not notice that on a day-long test, that reliability makes a big difference on long, difficult journeys.

So what's it like on good days? Pretty good.

It's light and tossable, without feeling like it's going to shake itself to pieces at speeds over 55mph. It has good ground clearance, and there are all varieties of street/dirt rubber available for the wheels, from pure dirt to supermoto. The suspension isn't what you'd pick for charging over rough terrain at Dakar speeds, but it strikes a good balance between being comfortable on the road and not a complete catastrophe on the trail. The upright riding position is comfortable and yields good visibility in traffic. Sadly, it's not available with ABS - but the brakes are very capable in any setting short of road racing (for which you should purchase oversized rotors and heavy-duty pads). The engine is as much as you can expect from a street-focused 250cc single; great power for casual trailriding and getting around town. The fuel injection is completely flawless at any reasonable temperature and altitude - the bike runs clean and fires up on cold days every time.

But if you want the good stuff, you could go read any other review. So let's talk about the crap that you notice after a few years.

First of all, don't expect 1200cc-class comfort on the stock bike. While vibrations from the little single are amazingly well-subdued, there's no wind protection whatsoever, and even I will admit the stock seat gets uncomfortable after a few hours. Aftermarket windscreens, seats etc. can help, but they can also add cost and bulk to your minimalist ADV, which would sorta defeat the purpose.

Stock, the engine takes a lot of revving to get into the powerband, and even with the sucker screaming at 9k RPM, you don't have a lot of oomph for passing after 65mph. Modest power gains can be made with more airbox/exhaust mods and ECU programming to match, but the bike will never punch above the 250cc class in a straight line.

It's also not a great-looking bike, somehow straddling retro and futuristic without being either. The design was high-tech for the mid-2000s. It comes across as a little lazy, particularly on a premium-priced bike. The chassis is a hand-me-down from the old WRF dirt bikes, and the engine is derived from an R1 superbike. Those platforms have gotten substantial refreshes over the last decade to make them sharper, more capable, more fun to ride and easier to look at. It's too bad that Yamaha hasn't been sufficiently motivated to develop this bike into something stronger. Solely using parts off their shelves, they could wedge a newer motor into a more compact frame with correspondingly updated suspension.

Maybe Yamaha has sat on their laurels for eight years because their rivals are pretty pathetic. Below are the comparable bikes that I've ridden:

The most direct threat is probably Honda's CRF250L. It too is a great all-purpose lightweight ADV mount, with a torquey (but less powerful) motor borrowed from a CBR250. On the road it's more comfortable but in the dirt it feels noticeably pigglier than the WR250R. The CRF's shorter and softer suspension is also more likely to get flustered when tackling trails at anything quicker than casual trailriding. That said, a brand new CRF is almost $2k cheaper than a WRR, leaving a lot of headroom for upgrades.

Kawasaki has their KLX250S, which could trade punches with the WRR if only it were fuel injected in the USA, like it is in the rest of the world. It also plays the cheap card, at more than $1k less than the WRR.

Hailing from Austria, KTM makes a factory plated 350 EXC which is lighter, more powerful and more race-ready than the WR250R, but it sacrifices long maintenance intervals and other road-oriented features, and it costs close to $10,000 for a dirtbike. Yikes.

Most would consider KTM's 690 Enduro R to be direct competition for the little WRR, and sure enough you'll find plenty of former WRR riders aboard 690s (myself included). The 690 weighs around 340lbs fully fueled - 100lbs less than most 600cc+ adventure pigs, but about 50lbs more than a WRR. On top of its weight, it's more expensive ($10.3k MSRP), somewhat more difficult to keep running, and parts for it are priced 2-5x higher than the equivalent WRR equipment (blame spend-happy 690 owners shoring up those prices). On the other hand, the 690 is sublime to ride on any trail or any road in a way that the WRR can only aspire to, which I will explore in more detail in a later post.