Derrel's Photography Blog

Don't Believe The Slanderous Claptrap

2010-03-03T01:54:00.000-08:00

I've recently been accused of "hating Canon" cameras. Funny, that: for most of my personal photography over the last two years, the camera I reach for when the photos need to be good is a ...C...c...c....CANON 5D ! I personally love the file quality from the Canon 5D, and the body is smallish, light, and does not draw attention like a huge Nikon or Canon 1-digit body does. I have been using 35mm style SLR Cameras since the mid-1970's,and am firmly convinced that a smaller, less-obtrusive, more "amateur-looking" camera makes people feel more at ease,and so the half-height Canon 5D makes an excellent full-frame platform for social photography situations.

Let's see, I own the following Canon equipment.

Canon 24-105 f/4 L-IS USM
Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM
Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus
Canon 135mm f/2 L USM
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS USM
Canon 18-55 EF-S
Sigma 18-125mm DC
Sigma 80-400mm OS zoom
Canon Digital Rebel 350
Canon EOS 20D + battery grip
Canon EOS 5 D + battery grip
Canon 580-EX II Flash
Canon 500D + Diopter lens 77mm

Canon A-1 underwater 35mm camera

14 Nikon F lens to Canon EF body adapters
Five M42 thread mount lens to Canon EF body adapters

So, for a guy who allegedly "hates anything Canon" it would seem odd that I own over $10,000 worth of Canon gear, wouldn't you agree? Canon has some very good things going for it, such as a good raw developer software, FREE, with each camera. Canon's DPP software does a good job of converting RAW files and is rock-solid, very much UNLIKE Nikon Capture, which despite its $179 price, is a crash-prone, slow, archaic piece of software that is exceedingly cranky to work with. Nikon Capture has a few truly unique advantages, like its Lightness Channel editor,and the ability to read the secret, encrypted white balance from Nikon D2x NEF files, but it's mostly a software app for hand-perfecting a few selects, or for simple en mass global adjustments, with the changes written back to the NEF files without sidecar files, or for the worker who wishes to make a fully perfected, fully adjusted, color-balanced and tweaked original NEF file, and have the entire change list written back to the "original" .NEF file.

Much of my fondness for the Canon 5D is that Canon has a good, single-lens zoom offering that can handle anything between 24 and 105mm, with stabilizer, and a constant f/4 aperture. Nikon has nothing for full frame users that can compare, except two atrocious versions of the 24-120 piece of shit lens. Man, what a piece of crap. Total, effin' crap. Flimsy build, awful ergonomics, and Coke-bottle bottom corners, and a reputation, well deserved, for wobbly barrel feel, second rate build and amateur-level optics. Canon's 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM on the other hand, has full-time manual override, USM focusing, Image Stabilizer, solid build, and a very ideal balance on the 5D body when used without the grip.

One of the Canon 5D's real hidden strengths for me though, its its ability to be used with both Canon AND Nikon lenses, as well as Pentax M42 lenses. That is why I own 14 Nikon lens to Canon EF-mount lens adapters, and five M42 lens adapters. I have been using Nikon 35mm SLR cameras and lenses since 1982, and I have a lot of lenses in F-mount. Lenses that are for the most part unlike any made by other makers. I have a number of very good Nikkor manual focus lenses which have NO EQUAL from any other maker. Nikon's trio of top mid-range telephoto lenses 85/1.4, 105/2 DC, and 135 f/2 DC are a single-decade design of lenses which operate as the perfect trio of high-speed telephoto lenses optimized for people photography, with excellent optics and surprisingly light weight, and all three have superb bokeh, with each lens being a fantastic optic in its own right. Having a Canon full-frame body with a 12.8 megapixel 24x36mm sensor leverages my 85/105/135 Nikon primes.

The Canon 5D "looks like" a consumer d-slr when the grip is off, and it carries like a consumer camera as well, which makes it almost ideal for carrying with you. With the handgrip and two batteries in it, the camera balances better with big glass on it, for "serious" work. It works in semi-automatic metering mode in Aperture Value automatic, which is my favorite automatic mode, with ANY NIKON LENS made in the 1959-1977 pre-AI era; it works with ALL the lenses made in the 1977-2010 Ai and Ai-S manual focus era; it works with ALL the AF and AF-D Nikkor lenses--in Aperture Value automatic mode, and in manual, match-diode metering modes. I've been amassing lenses in F-mount since 1982,so I have a huge investment in manual focusing Nikkor lenses that work better on a Canon 5D than on many mid-range Nikon bodies, which are INCOMPATIBLE or at best semi-incompatible with over 20 years' worth of manual focusing lenses I have accumulated. The Canon 5D will accept over 50 Nikkor lenses that I own and have been amassing since 1982...all except the very-newest G-series lenses I own.

I'm used to the 24x36mm, 3:2 ratio camera. I have spent almost three decades using 24x36 cameras and full-frame lenses, and only nine years with 1.5x and 1.6x crop-body D-slr cameras. I bought my first digital camera in 2001, a Nikon D1. I have *never* liked the 1.5x or 1.6x crop body cameras and the way they affect lens performance. All the wide-angles and wide zooms are crippled on APS-C bodies. Prime telephotos, which I own a lot of, are rendered too narrow-angle for use in the situations they were designed for, and are seriously restricted when used indoors. A 1.5x or 1.6x field of view reduction forces very long working distances in portraiture, and forces one to work with a total image area that is roughly 2.3 times smaller in area than a 24x36 camera. A 24x36 digital sensor offers superb High ISO capabilities, and returns the "35mm" style camera to what it was from 1928 to until early 1999, when the Nikon D1 hit the market with its odd, 1.5x sensor size.

For somebody like me, who has been using Nikon 35mm SLR bodies and lenses since 1982, and who still owns the SAME, exact F-mount lenses from the 1980's and 1990's, the value and utility of a Canon FF body as a triple-brand light-tight digital camera with a supply of superb digital film inside the box is almost inestimable. The Canon 5D performs AV and manual light metering with 90% of the Nikon lenses I own; it is more-adaptable than any Nikon, even the pro Nikons, because the 5D can use older, unmodified pre-AI lenses and macro accessories, which I have a few of: the D1,D2,and D3 Nikons cannot use those older pre-Ai lenses and accesories without damaging the camera. A D1 or D2 is a huge, obvious, threatening camera. The 5D looks like a consumer camera, and draws very little attention and does not put people "off". The Canon 5D hearkens back to the era of the Nikon FE-2 and Nikon FM. In many respects, the Canon 5D is almost the perfect replacement for the Nikon FE-2 or the Nikon FM or the Nikon F3--it can use all the same,exact lenses and accessories, and it offers the same minimalist design ethos as those three Nikons, which I used from 1982 to 2001. I spent basically 19 consecutive years using either an FM, or an FE-2 or a Nikon F3 HP and manual focusing lenses. To me, manual focusing is still a viable option in many situations. Even with an AF camera in use.

It's really quite simple. The Canon 5D is an almost essential camera to buy and own for anybody who has a large collection of older Nikon lenses and macro accessories. The Canon 5D and 5D-Mark II are without a doubt among **the MOST-ADAPTABLE*** camera bodies a long-time Nikon shooter can own. Full, uncropped lens angle of view, superior image quality,dependable and free RAW converter software, small size, a light weight body, and Av automatic and manual match-diode metering modes with basically all the 1959-2007 manual focus Nikon or Pentax lenses, PLUS full and totally dedicated operation with all Canon EF autofocusing lenses made since 1987.

There's a specific individual on the web spreading lies about me, saying that I hate anything Canon. That is pure, unadulterated bullshit. An outright lie. While I prefer Nikon's body control systems,and have 28 years worth of experience with lenses that mount the opposite way and focus the opposite direction as Canon lenses do, I have invested pretty heavily in Canon lenses, and find that for me, the Canon 5D offers excellent image quality and it works with each and every lens I own except for just a handful of G-series Nikkors. I still use manual focus macro lenses and manual focus tele-primes, and still rely on my Nikon lens collection on many occasions. I cannot justify owning two complete camera systems unless one of the systems features lens cross-compatibility--which is where the CANON system is the absolute, unsurpassed champion of the 35mm style SLR cameras. I have Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED-IF, 300 f/4.5 internal focus, 300 f/4 AF-S, 300 f/2.8 AFS-Mark II, and 400mm f/3.5 internal focus lenses...I simply can NOT afford to duplicate those lenses in both Canon and Nikon lens offerings. My Nikon,Tamron, and Sigma macro lenses, five lenses in all, serve double-duty by owning Canon and Nikon bodies. Owning a Canon or two to go with a Nikon lens collection makes absolute, total sense. It is a **HUGE** advantage to own a Canon body or two if you own more than a few Nikon lenses made between 1959 and 2007.

Again,the idea that I "hate Canon" is a load of total bullshit. Any Nikon shooter who wants to leverage his pre-G Nikkor lenses definitely needs to own at least one Canon body. And now, there are new G-series Nikon lens to Canon body adapters, with a new one scheduled to appear from Novoflex, that will also leverage the fantastic new G-series VR-equipped Nikkor super-telephotos and the new Nikon VR-GV series zooms and Nikon's newest, shorter macro primes in 60-85-105mm lengths.

The idea that I hate Canon is idiotic. It's a camera system that can adapt to lenses made from 1959 to 2009, from many manufacturers. A Canon body breathes new life into Leica-R lenses, M42 thread mount lenses, Olympus OM-series lenses, and Nikon F mount lenses and accessories. I own three Canon d-slrs, eight Canon brand lenses, and two Sigma lenses in EF mount. I would not have spent well over $10,00 on something I "hate". Don't listen to the slanderous claptrap being spewed by a guy who has been in the photo game for only a short while, and who does not seem to understand that no one, single brand of equipment reigns supreme, and who fails to understand that cameras,lenses, and flash gear are not religions, but merely object to be used. Don't listen to this guy that doesn't own accessories that might have been made in the 1970's or 1980's, or the 1990's, and which although now apparently "old", might actually the best of their kind, and which might simply not be made any longer, at any price.

I believe that Nikon has a better body control system than any other camera maker, and I prefer Nikkor lenses that have aperture control rings on each, individual lens, but to use an analogy, Nikon is the Seagrams, and Canon is the 7-Up, and the lenses are the glass that holds it all,and makes it possible to enjoy the totality of the experience.

Put another way, Nikon is the pepper. Canon is the salt. The lenses are the steak.

If you do not have any steak, there's no need for either pepper or for salt. The guy that continually trumpets how good the white, Canon salt is, but has no steak to go with it doesn't really have much of a meal to eat now, does he? I understand that no one, single company has a "lock" on quality or on dominance. Right now, Canon has some GLARING, and HUGE holes in its product matrix. Right now Nikon has some HUGE, and GLARING holes in its product matrix. I've been around the photo game since I bought my first 35mm camera 37 years ago, and taught myself to shoot when I was 10 years old. There's plenty that I have lived through, and my point of view is not that of a one-brand zealot. I have lived through the dominance of Nikon, and seen the rise of Canon, the dominance of Canon, and now the pendulum seems like it's STUCK--right in the middle.

To the person who thinks that Nikon reigns supreme, or that Canon reigns supreme, or who sees a Canon hater in me, I'd urge you to look deep within yourself, and start looking at the points of view of other shooters, and not just me, who know more about other camera and lens systems that you happen to know absolutely zero about from personal experience, ownership, or even rental. I do not "hate Canon"--I have a PREFERENCE FOR Nikon optics over certain Canon optics, but I use both,and I own both.

I'm tired of reading that I have a "bias towards Nikon" from my internet stalker, Tim Harmsen of Valparaiso, Indiana AKA "InTempus", and the founder of the Canon fanboy website www.kwanonians.com. I have bought well over $10,000 of Canon gear, and have not sold any of it! I still keep it and use it! What I do have in some instances, is not a bias, but rather a preference for Nikon. A preference that has been built over almost three consecutive decades, since 1982 to the present--not from experience that began in 2007 or 2008 or 2009. I have a preference for Nikon in the areas where Nikon works better for me, feels better to me, or whenever a Nikon product actually *IS* better than a comparable Canon product that I happen to own. I cannot buy and own everything, so I buy the products that I feel are the best value, or which will bring the most utility. And newsflash --at times, either a Canon or a Nikon product will be notably, almost unequivocally better, OR horror of horrors, the "other" brand will have absolutely NO competing product(s) in an entire category. None. Nothing, Zip. Zero. Nikon Full-Frame d-slr prior to 2007? NOTHING to buy, so I bought a Canon FF 5D. Professional grade ultrasonic motor zoom lens like the 200-400mm f/4 Zoom-Nikkor with VR? From 2003 to 2010 Nikon has owned that category, with zero competition from any maker. Professionally capable bodies with built-in multiple flash commanders and advanced grouped flash TTL control? A Nikon exclusive for many years, with Canon's 7D being the first Canon to even begin to approach Nikon's features. Affordable, high-MP d-slr with half height body and full-frame video--the Canon 5D Mark II blows everything right out of the water--at only $2,499! And there are several other factual instances of dominance and or exclusivity among various Canon and Nikon gear. Where is Nikon's autofocusing 50mm f/1.2 lens? Where is Nikon's USM 80-400mm? Where is Nikon's MPE-65 1x-5x ultra-macro lens? Where is NIkon's 35mm/1.4 USM lens? Where is Nikon's 400mm f/4 DO lens? Where is Nikon's 180mm/3.5 macro? Where is Canon's 14-24mm f/2.8 with WORLD-class optical performance that betters **almost any** prime lens made in the last 30 years?

These last few comparisons are not opinions--they are cold,hard facts. No fanboy arguments can change the facts.

For those who wish to expand your capabilities and buy "exotic" lenses, or want to amass an entire wide-spectrum lens kit on a starving college-student type budget, you seriously should look at the various Canon d-slr bodies as a key part of your camera strategy. A Canon d-slr can be fitted with doggone near any lens you'd ever want to use,and with a bit of practice, can be useful in many shooting situations that do not demand rapid focusing or sure-fire AF performance. With a Canon body, the world of 35mm style lenses is your oyster. And I do love oysters!

Trends in Photography for 2010

2009-12-26T12:14:00.000-08:00

Well, 2009 is drawing to a close. Not much has really changed in the photo world, at least from my point of view. Overall, the largest trend I see gaining momentum is amateurs who wish to learn how to use multi-flash and/or off-camera flash lighting, spawned largely as a result of the popularity of the Strobist blog run by David Hobby, and the proliferation of inexpensive Chinese-made remote triggering products. As recently as a few years ago, the Pocket Wizard folks owned a major portion of the remote triggering market, but with the rise of eBay and the Chinese manufacturers getting into the market, the entire situation has changed, radically. The term "Strobist" is a recently coined one, and increasingly the "Strobist" mentality is spreading to more and more hobbyists, which I think is a great thing.

Another trend I see is the "instant expert"; the guy who has been taking photographs for a year or a little more, and who has a good-paying job, and as a result has been able to buy a selection of higher-end lenses and a camera body or two, and who holds himself up as some type of "expert" on various photography forums. Oh, he never publicly admits he's really just a newbie with a generous budget; no, instead, he writes post after post as if he's been around photography for quite some time, and as if his opinions actually have merit. I'm seeing increasing numbers of these "instant experts".

Another trend I see gathering steam is the "50mm Brigade". The 50mm Brigade is a group of people, each of whom has discovered the beauty of the fixed focal length 50mm lens. With lens prices for many higher-specified lenses having risen quite a bit over the last few years, and with the popularity of internet photography forums, the wonders and capabilities of the 50mm lens have been discovered by an increasingly large percentage of first-time d-slr buyers, as well as more experienced shooters. The 50mm Brigade marvels at the benefits of a fixed focal length lens with a wide maximum aperture. It's good to see people getting a taste of what prime lenses are all about! Nikon's new, low-cost 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX Nikkor lens has spawned another sub-group: the 35mm Brigade. Let's hope this trend of prime lens use increases.

Among on-line forums, the increase in fanboys and One Brand Zealots has been duly noted in the year 2009; one thing I have noticed, especially among older shooters, seems to be a tendency to quite vociferously demean and put down the Sony brand. One cranky Canadian repeatedly uses his position as an old-timer in an on-line forum to refer to the Sony Alpha line of cameras as the dog food brand "Alpo". How clever is our little Canadian crank? Answer: not very. This year he ditched Canon in favor of Nikon....funny,really, some of the stories behind his defense of Canon products earlier in the year. He and I got into a discussion of the EOS 5D and its lackluster autofocusing system, with him defending the 5D's AF performance, and me disparaging it. Of course, he had never owned a professional-caliber Nikon AF body, so he had no basis for comparison for his weak assertions. But then again, this guy held himself out as an "expert", yet his experience in the d-slr world is substantially shorter and more limited than mine, so his lack of an actual basis for comparison between a "professional-level" AF body and an EOS 5D's AF system is understandable. I'm sure his experience with a higher-end Nikon (he went with the D700) will allow him to see the error of his earlier opinion.

The avalanche that is Flickr is gaining momentum,and its roaring sound can be heard and felt all over the web. Flickr has become a powerful social networking AND photo hosting site within the past year. More and more folks are signing up for free and paid Flickr accounts. Giving something away for free has long been a strategy to bring people in and hook them long-term, kind of like the old give away the razor, sell them the razor blades strategy. While the majority of Flickr users are users with free accounts, I am seeing an increasing number of people with paid "pro" accounts. As I see, it, each account established at Flickr means at least a 30 percent chance that the owner of that account will NOT establish a payed account at another photo hosting site like pBase or SmugMug, for example. Since 2009 was the death year for Microsoft's paid "Microsoft Encarta" encyclopedia (begun in 1994), I suppose it might take a while for people to entirely abandon some of the older payed sites for their photo hosting needs, in much the way people stopped paying Microsoft for (in)accurate, revisionist information,and instead settled on using Wikipedia as a way to get their (in)accurate and revisionist information without paying for said information.

Looking on eBay, a trend I have seen within just the last few days is the modification of some inexpensive Chinese-made beauty dishes to the Speedotron mount, using a rear mounting system that has four bolts and four round nuts, thus allowing the adaptation of the beauty dish to different strobe mounts. I have one of these beauty dishes in the 16 inch size, with a white nylon diffuser. The newest ones are priced at $49.95 to $59.95, to $89.95 with a 16 inch honeycomb grid at the higher price; I think this is a very good value for a beauty dish, and I predict that these affordable dishes will be popular in 2010. Why?

The low-cost beauty dishes and grids will be popular in 2010 because the studio lights for hobbyist movement is gaining momentum at a rapid pace. As a result of the Strobist movement, interest in studio electronic flash is at what I consider an all-time high. Monolight systems like Alien Bees, Elinchrom, Calumet Genesis, Adorama FlashPoint, JTL, and others seem to be drawing the attention of more and more basement and garage studio shooters than ever before. I personally like the look of somewhat smaller sources like 16 and 20-inch reflectors for single and two-person photographs. Umbrellas and softboxes are nice and all, but are not the be-all, end-all of lighting, and as people search for ways to add distinctive looks to their setups, I predict that the low-cost beauty dish will become one of the hot trends of 2010.

Paul C. Buff's new, large parabolic umbrellas were recently profiled on robgalbraith.com, and I think that 2010 will mark the introduction of the new Buff "PLM" system umbrellas as a popular light modifier for certain applications. http://www.white-lightning.com/plm.html
With sizes of 86 inches, 64 inches, and 42 inches, these new umbrellas are affordable, and they are EXTREMELY efficient, delivering unusually high guide numbers, even with smaller speedlights. Dubbed the Parabolic Light Modifier system, Rob Galbraith and crew have been using them since August of 2009, and their article " PLM umbrellas offer sweet combo of efficiency and softness" is a must-read article for those who are interested in using umbrellas for sports or group shots where it is desirable to have a very efficient light source that can cover a large area. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10046-10396

D-SLR Photography in a State of Flux

2009-10-30T18:09:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks, it seems to me that d-slr photography is once again in a state of flux. Periodically, the field seems to become overwhelmed with changes,and this period now seems to be one of those periods where the "old" values and the old expectations are changing. Nikon has introduced some new cameras, at both the entry level and it has iterated its top semi-pro and pro bodies the D300s and and D3s. Canon has recently stepped up its semi-pro offering, the 7D, offering multi-point AF and Canon's first ever color-aware light metering system. Sony has introduced the full frame a850 at $1899, marking the first time a full frame d-slr body has been introduced at anywhere under the $2,000 price point. Panasonic has introduced new higher-end EVIL or Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens cameras in the 4/3 mount, and Olympus and SIgma have both introduced fixed-lens digital cameras that are somewhat like the old 35mm compact rangefinders like the Minolta Hi-Matic series or the Canon Canonet series of cameras. All around the photography world, the expectations and features of the d-slr have been changed, or challenged. As the title indicates, d-slr photograhy is in a state of flux.

I had intended to title this post "I Don't Know What Anybody Wants These Days," but that sounded kind of weird, plus it didn't contain the term photography in it, and this is ostensibly a blog about photography topics. But you know, I've been hitting some of the web sites and photography blogs, and spending a lot of time at The Photography Forum for the past three months or so, and the thing I notice now is that there is widespread confusion, indecision, and uncertainty right now among many people for whom photography is a hobby,pastime,passion, or profession. Digital photography has basically overtaken film-based photography for most shooters, that's a given. But right now, the major manufacturers are heading in new directions, and offering new features, like video capture, and ultra-high megapixel counts in the Nikon D3x, Sony A900 and A850,and Canon 5D Mark II cameras. Nikon has introduced 51-point AF, and Canon's new 7D has 19 point AF with all 19 AF points being cross-type. Flash technology is becoming more and more sophisticated. The Strobist blog site and the Strobist movement has put more and more people into situations where off-camera speedlights and low-cost monolights are being used more frequently than ever. Portable pure sine wave inverters like the Paul C. Buff Vagabond II and the Innovatronix Explorer series of portable sine wave inverters are making it possible to move studio strobes outside, off the grid.

IN SHORT, there seems to be a huge,swirling torrent of changes in the d-slr world these days. I can sense a lot of disorientation among hobbyists, who wonder if it's time to invest in some studio lights, or who wonder if the full frame bodies are worth the extra cost over DX bodies. I also see a smaller subset of people who seem burned out on the whole d-slr picture-taking thing,and are desiring a smaller,lighter camera but one that has high capabilities. On the various discussion forums these days, I see ideas and ideologies clashing with one another, every day, on every forum. Some people are upset that Canon went with a 1.6x crop, 18 megapixel sensor in their 7D; other people are upset that Nikon has not updated the D700 to a 21-24 megapixel camera; many Canon users are bummed that Canon has no "fast-handling and afordable" pro-type body with full frame that can compete with the Nikon D700 in situations where sophisticated AF and high ISO performance and a fast-handling body are supremely advantageous. All in all, it seems as if the huge, complex mass of d-slr shooters has become a competing sea of differing interests, and the groups and sub-groups within the photography field are no longer content with whatever the manufacturers come out with. It is now almost as if a large subset of the market is mostly UN-happy with the products the big manufacturers release!

The New Cameras of Late 2009

2009-09-30T14:44:00.000-07:00

Since my last blog entry, a multiple new d-slr models have been announced, or hit the streets. Most notable would be the new Canon 7D and the Sony Alpha 850. Both cameras bring advanced features and technology down to never before seen price points, and both up the 'game' for their respective makers. Canon now has a new autofocusing system, and its first ever built-in wireless flash commander, AND its first-ever color-aware light metering system (like the one Nikon invented in the mid-1990's, only slightly different). Canon has finally managed to come up with a $1699 price point camera that can compete on features and capabilities with the now two-year old Nikon D300,and the new Nikon D300s, which added video. Sony's Alpha 850 is almost IDENTICAL in feature set to the Alpha 900, only the newer model has a little bit less precisely calibrated viewfinder, and yet is priced at $1899. And we need to keep in mind--these prices were set AFTER a recent across the board price hike that hit virtually all major Japanese camera makers' lenses,cameras, and accessories. As I have said often, this is a great time to be involved in photography!

The new Pentax K-7 looks intriguing; I recently saw a couple of sample images from this camera that looked even higher resolution, and more filled with real,significant detail than even the 17+ MP Canon 7D's images. Of course, the Pentax has just under 15 megapixels, which is not much different than 17.6 megapixels,and as we know, there is much more to a camera's imaging chain than just the sensor. It's kind of a shame that Pentax has lost so much ground over the last 20 years,especially in North America. Pentax still has a relatively strong,loyal following in Japan, as well as a much smaller yet still loyal following in the USA and Canada. The company's DA* line of lenses seems particularly well thought out in terms of angles of view and the APS-C sensor size that Pentax has standardized on.

Looking at Nikon, most users don't see anything especially new or innovative,and of course, that's to be expected from Nikon I think; they are a slow-moving,conservative company and their product cycles are well known by now. If anything, I expect new LENSES from NIkon to be the biggest announcements they make over the next year or so. I expect that the 85mm f/1./4 and 80-400 VR lenses will be iterated, and of course, they have already announced the new,second generation of the 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens.

Canon's next professionally oriented, high-megapixel flagship camera, the EOS 1Ds Mark IV is expected soon by many people. My question though is WHEN will Canon adopt a new name for the EOS 1Ds models? When will they move to the EOS 2 generation, or add some other differentiating letters? That lower case s is getting pretty tired by now, holding up all those megapixels!

Looking for my next camera body-back to Nikon

2009-06-08T20:03:00.000-07:00

I have slowly been growing tired of the Canon EOS 5D's body and control limitations. Not too long ago, I photographed my son's school field day,and had a nuisance of a time with the 5D's back button autofocus controls. To me, the menu system dependence Canon d-slr cameras have is a terrible disadvantage over Nikon cameras. On Canon cameras, the controls on the back of the camera and the top right front of the camera actually CHANGE FUNCTIONS, depending on which exposure mode the camera is set to. I liken this to switching the control of the gas and brake in a car, depending on which gear the transmission happens to be in: an absolutely stupid idea.

Yes, it is true. The inconsistent performance of my two Canons has cost me many photographs over the last few years--at times when I really,really wanted to make a photo, I have brought my 20D or 5D up to my eye, and had the camera let me down, usually in terms of its inability to autofocus fast enough to get the shot. But also, at times, there has been a need to make an exposure change,and the fucked up Canon control system has cost me the shot. To my way of thinking, only ONE control should adjust the shutter speed, an only ONE control should adjust the aperture. Always. No matter which exposure mode the camera happens to be set to. But that is NOT the way Canon cameras work. Nope...

A few years ago, after being disappointed with Nikon's sensor problems, I purchased a 20D, just to see what Canon was all about. I bought a 20D and a Sigma 18-125mm zoom, a Canon 50mm f/1.8 EF-II, and a used Canon 100mm f/2.8 EF USM Macro. I liked the 20D's picture quality across a wide range of ISO settings, and I liked its forgiving 8.2 Megapixel sensor. With the 100mm EF Macro, the images were sharp,and file size was an excellent compromise. My main complaints were with the 20D's focusing system,which often failed me,and which did not allow me to select off-center AF points very well. The 50mm f/1.8 EF-II lens was totally unacceptable on several fronts,and I gave the lens away to a nephew.

Then,about 18 months later, I decided to buy the EOS 5D and 24-105mm f/4 L-IS kit. I also added the 50mm 1.4 EF, the 85mm f/1.8 EF,the 135mm f/2 L, the 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 L-IS lens. I also added the 580 EX-II flash unit. Unlike the 20D, the 5 was a full frame d-slr, and I greatly relished having my favorite focal lengths "back again".
Many who took up serious photography only since the advent of the d-slr have no idea of how or why a 50mm lens differs from an 85mm lens, or "what a fast 135mm lens does". The crop-body d-slr forces the user to stand very far away when using lenses like the 85 and 135mm. The crop-sensor d-slr delivers a lot of depth of field at smaller apertures like f/8. The crop-body d-slr is very easy to work with when one needs a LOT of depth of field.

My problems though with the Canon 5 system are that the body itself has a very centrally-oriented AF system,and one which has poor controls over setting the autofocus area, and over controlling the AF and the AE lock functions. I'm just not happy with the menu-driven nature of the 5D or 20D line of Canon d-slr's. I do not like having four buttons, each of which has TWO different functions! I am not happy with a camera that rotates aperture,shutter,aperture,shutter between two different controls. I never again want to bring the camera up to my eye, and have the thumb wheel move the aperture when I EXPECT IT TO MOVE the shutter speed. Or vice-versa. With a Canon, that is a fact of life. Design flaw, if you ask me. I want predictability and single-purpose controls. I want my next new "good" camera to be a Nikon.

Low-Cost Studio Lighting Options

2009-03-28T22:31:00.000-07:00

Recently, there has been a big movement of people into the studio flash arena. I just want to go over a few low-cost monolight options. Adorama's FlashPoint line has the model 320A light, a 150 watt-second unit with a light stand and umbrella for $129.95, which is a really good deal.http://www.adorama.com/FP320K.html

Calumet Photographic is where I bought my very first Speedotron setup in 1987,and they are still one of America's largest lighting suppliers. They have their Genesis 200 monolight for $169.99 http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/CF0502/
The 200 watt-second kit with a light stand and umbrella sells for $199.99.The Genesis 200 has a 5 f/stop output range. According to Calumet's literature, this is an Elinchrom-compatible monolight,so speed rings for Elinchrom work with their Genesis monolights.http://www.calumetphoto.com/pdfs/press/NewsRelease-PPE-GenesisLights.pdf

Another low-cost option is the Interfit brand's EXD200, with free shipping for $207 for a single monolight that has a four-stop power range adjustable in 1/10 stop increments. This flash can be set to ignore the pre-flash signals from many d-slr flash units, allowing it to be triggered by the in-built flash found on virtually all d-slrs. http://www.adorama.com/PAINT118.html

Paul C. Buff company's Alien Bee 400 monolight is here http://www.alienbees.com/b400.html and priced at $224.95. It has a 5 f/stop range and is available in five colors! Paul C. Buff's Alien Bee line of AC-powered monolights are popular,and with popularity goes a reasonably high price.

The advantage of monolights is that each unit is a complete,self-contained flash unit. If one unit fails, other flashes are not affected. Monolights can also be purchased very affordably,so initial entry costs are reasonable,and a system can be started with one,two,or three units,and added to as needed. I personally think that five or six lights is enough for almost any setup.

A visit to B&H Photo's Studio Lighting section's Monolights and AC Strobes section under the "monolights" heading at http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/category/1413/Strobe_Lighting_Monolights_AC_Strobes.html

will allow you to click on lights by price category: the $60-$299 price category turns up 33 results.

Of course, my favorite low-cost studio lighting alternative is Speedotron Brown Line equipment, bought from e-Bay or Craigslist. Brown Line equipment has been made for several decades now, and there is a lot of good,solid stuff for sale at very affordable prices. I recently bought a mint condition,late-production model D202 power pack and MW3R light unit,complete with flash tube and modeling lamp, for $145. The more-common D402 power packs sell for $79 to $125 on e-Bay, with MW3U umbrella-capable lights going for as little as $35-$50 each, and M90 umbrella-capable and background-illuminating lights selling for $39 to $70,depending on the auction. Occasionally, like a few weeks ago, a D402 and a set of three M11 lights sells for a ridiculously low $229. Check my 99th blog post, May 31, 2008 for a complete rundown on Speedotron flash equipment and my observations on it.

How The DX Format Impacts People Photography

2009-02-20T21:08:00.000-08:00

How The DX Format Impacts People Photography

http://silverbased.org/dof-vs-format/

The DX sensor crops OFF,and does not utilize, much of the image circle a full-field Nikkor lens projects. Because a DX format SLR does not capture the outside of the image circle of a full-field lens, to gain a wider angle of view with a DX camera, one must compensate by using a lens with a much shorter focal length than if one were using an FX format camera. Example: a 28mm lens on DX has "roughly" the same angular view as a 43mm lens on FX format (figuring the Nikon 1.5x FOV factor as being close to 1.53 actually).

Because a DX sensor does not "catch" or image the outer areas of a lens's image circle, in order to use an 85mm lens to photograph a six foot tall man, one must have the camera at distance of 30 feet,to allow a field of view of 8.47 feet tall,to allow the person to be shown with 2.47 feet of real estate alloted for foot space and head space, as well as for some allowance for cropping to 8x10 or 16x20 aspect ratio. Using an FX format Nikon and the same 85mm lens,one can position the camera at only 20 feet from the subject,and achieve the same 8.47 foot tall field of view when posing a 6 foot tall standing man.

What's the problem with this? In a studio of 25 feet depth, with a DX camera, one can NOT use longer focal length lenses like 85mm,105,135,or 200mm unless the subject area is very small. When indoors and using a DX format camera, to frame something as large as four to eight people, one simply can NOT deploy a lens of much over 50mm in length in most studios or in most rooms, unless the photographer is able to stand 40 feet away from the subjects and to communicate with them via walkie-talkie or via yelling. The problem with this situation? Well, there are several problems. First, the DX format demands a short focal length lens in order to encompass a group of four to eight people in most studio or wedding or social photography situations,and the required short focal length lens will 1) foreshorten objects,making extended limbs look awkward and unnaturally long in seated poses or reclining poses 2)distort the relative size of those close to the camera in relationship to those in the back--ie the closer people are imaged at a large size on the sensor,but those farther from the camera are imaged disturbingly smaller in size 3)distort the shape of objects or people placed anywhere near the corners or edges of the frame
4) cause keystoning on vertical objects,like standing people or upright objects like bottles or glasses,unless the back of the camera is kept absolutely parallel with the back wall--which is very difficult to do many times and limits composition tremendously 5) provide deep depth of field at normal flash apertures like f/5.6 and virtually hyperfocal depth of field at apertures like f/8 to f/11 6) the short focal length lens will be focused fairly close to hyperfocal distance at normal indoor working distances, thus robbing the photographer of the ability to selectively throw a background out of focus and 7) the short focal length necessitated by the small capture format of DX will invariably mean that in order to photograph people, posed indoors or outdoors in groups, the actual,physical width of the background behind said group will need to be physically large, and wide, both in terms of inches, and in subtended viewing angle.

Remember--a typical studio backdrop is 107 inches wide, and two support poles are positioned 3-4 inches on either side of the edges of the background support bar. Using a DX camera for studio photography or location photography of people imposes a lot of limitations on the photographer, because the lenses used are so short,and because short lenses have a whole host of rendering "issues"; keystoning propensity, geometric distortion,unfavorable foreshortening of limbs and noses,and distorted near-to-far spatial rendering (technically known as apparent perspective distortion,but commonly called "the wide-angle effect" by many) that makes anything in the background look small and insignificant. The short focal length lenses needed on DX-format cameras bring with them hyperfocal distances that are very short,and which eliminate the photographer's ability to use selective focusing effects. Short lenses on small capture formats bring with them wide Field Of View angles. When the photographer must use his camera to encompass "people-sized" subject areas inside of real buildings with things like windows and ceilings and cluttered backgrounds, having a camera with a small capture area and a short lens is a drawback in many ways.

One might ask--if one wishes to throw the background out of focus, why not simply move farther away with the DX camera? That strategy doesn't work, since increasing the camera-to-subject distance brings with it greater depth of field. Increasing depth of field is MOST easily done by lengthening camera-to-subject distance; in fact, increasing camera-to-subject distance is the PRIMARY means to quickly increase depth of field. Once the camera-to-subject distance hits around 20 feet, with a small capture format and a moderately small aperture, one is ALREADY at, or sufficiently close to the hyperfocal distance to ensure deep depth of field! That means that in effect, one can NOT throw the background out of focus. Well,why not use a longer lens and also move back? Again...long camera to subject distances like 40,50,60,and 80 feet with a small-format DX camera means very deep depth of field. Long camera to subject distance on DX format, EVEN with a long telephoto lens, means ample depth of field. And at long shooting distances the background's distance behind the subject in ANY indoor situation short of a domed indoor football stadium, means that for all intents and purposes, the main subject will be in good focus AND a background that is anywhere from three to twenty feet behind the main subject will ALSO be rendered in quite acceptable (and often distracting) focus. This in a nutshell, is a summary of some of the depth of field facts encountered when using small capture formats, both film and digital. The smaller the capture format and the shorter the lenses used, the worse this problem becomes. This is one reason I think the 4/3 format is lousy for people photography, but offers truly superb potential for creative,interior architectural photography, or for social-documentary-artistic work where one desires deep depth of field.

The problems encountered in studio work, studio portraiture,location portraiture,and weddings are greatly compounded by using a small, DX-sensored camera. A typical scenario of a family group of four people shot on DX means that one will be very limited by the crop factor of DX; a DX sensor in a camera does not "magnify" the image projected by every lens mounted,it merely crops off the edges of the lens's projected image. So, in order to encompass something larger than a flower, something as large as a family group of four standing people, with a DX camera, one must use a lens that is much shorter in focal length than if one had an FX format camera. That short lens has a wide angle of view,and renders things with backgrounds that appear small, sharp, and wide-view! Because the format is small, hyperfocal distances are very close to normal,indoor portrait shooting distances--this is NOT a good situation. Why? A background is only "so wide", a studio's ceiling is only "so high" and light stands typically are only 13 feet tall at the most,and a "long" muslin is 24 feet. But if a six foot tall man and his wife and two kids are to be posed,standing,in a room with only a 10 foot ceiling, to get them into the picture, the top of the background will likely show in the picture _IF_ one has to use a DX camera, with a short lens, in any room other than a huge, 60 foot deep commercial studio.

The diagonal measurement of the capture medium is what determines the "normal" lens length for each format. The problem,in real-world studio use,is that the DX format CAMERA and its SHORT LENS FOCAL LENGTHS impinge directly on the picture,and how the picture can be made with regard to subjects such as people who are standing, or family groups that have four to 18 people in them. A group of people is a very large thing--much larger than many natural world subjects, and they must be presented to the camera pleasingly,without those in front having huge,fat heads, and without the people at the edges of the frame appearing like alien beings,with distorted eyeglasses,and hunched over backs. And how must they be presented? Often, an entire group wishes to be shown full-figure, posed literally ON a background of paper or muslin. Often the portrait and wedding shooter will photograph people in offices,bedrooms used as dressing rooms,church foyers,city hall judge's chambers, work rooms, hallways, porches, back decks, patios, aboard boats, in motor homes, in restaurant reception rooms,etc. If one wishes to avoid keystoning, geometric distortion,and extreme foreshortening and exaggerated appearances on heads,legs,arms,and noses,one absolutely MUST avoid using short focal length lenses at close distances. But that is exactly the situation the small DX format sensor forces upon the photographer--to compensate for the crop factor,the DX photographer must drop his lens focal length into the range where geometric distortion and foreshortening are huge issues on groups, causing corner positioned people to look horrible,and causing the heads in the front row to look huge, while the people in the back look far-away and pin-headed, and the photographer's control over both angle of view and depth of field is no longer under his control,but more under the control of optics. Simply stated, the CAMERA is driving the photographer when trying to use a DX format camera for serious people photography work! If one deliberately selects a DX format camera for studio portraiture,location portraiture, or wedding use, he is handicapping himself tremendously.

Then comes the issue of lighting of backgrounds, light falloff to control background color or rendition, and the actual types of lighting that can be used to light locations or backdrops. The short focal lengths, close working distances,and inherently deep depth of field that comes with a DX sensor and its short focal length lenses (at each range-ultra-wide, wide-angle,normal, short telephoto,long telephoto) means that the CAMERA is having a very large impact on what is actually possible to do,within the confines of modern buildings of all types,and on-location, the small DX format changes the behavior of telephoto lenses....they can NOT encompass an entire figure....the sensor is not "catching the image" from the 85mm lens's edges--it is not using that part of the lens. Moving farther back brings one closer and closer to the hyperfocal focusing distance,and cuts down on the ability to throw the background out of focus. It is easier to throw a background out of focus if the subject is close to the lens,and the background is far away from the lens; unfortunately in portraiture and wedding photography,people are often forced to be rather close to the background. Moving far away from the subject is the easiest way to bring huge,expansive depth of field--physically increasing shooting distance builds depth of field faster than stopping the lens down or going to a shorter focal length. By the time a person is far enough away from a DX camera for an 85mm lens to show them full-figure, the ability to throw the background out of focus has pretty well negated by the camera-to-subject distance approaching relative closeness to the hyperfocal distance of an 85mm lens.

A really bad DX camera scenario is this: you're hired to do some location portrait work,and you arrive and the conference room promised is not available,and the work must be done that day, using a small break room area. There is not room enough to set up a full-width background,and the ceiling is a low 9 footer, and the walls are littered with memos and posters on safety, the company newsletter, employee coffee mugs and office junk. You have a 17 foot deep room,and must photograph the five top salesmen, during their lunch break. Hmmm....there's one narrow swath of wall that's clean and uncluttered. You mount a single light on a stand and dial in 200 watt-seconds, position the first guy, and with your D300, you are forced to stand very close to him,and use a 24-70mm from 4 meters away. At 70mm you can get a head to waist composition with a clean,uncluttered background. At 65mm, you get a bit more of him and a LOT more background. If you need a full-length photo of him,in that room, with him 4 meters from the camera and main light, as soon as you set the lens to 35mm on your D300, to get the full length shot you want of him and a tiny bit of extra space for subject breathing room and or an 8x10 crop,and BAMMO! you immediately pick up a HUGE expanse of the ugly office walls which are a mere 7 feet behind the subject. It is at a time like this that it would be HUGELY advantageous to have a larger camera format that was not _FORCING_ you to shoot at 35mm just to include a six foot tall man 4 meters away from your camera. The wasting of the edges of the lens's field by the small sensor is a real drawback when photographing in tight,indoor situations,where you wish to control the photographic result. With FX, you can control the situation much better; with DX,indoors in smaller rooms,or on boats,etc, you are a prisoner to DX's small sensor, short focal length,deep depth of field issues. Not to mention keystoning and geometric distortions. The width of the wall shown behind the man is 7 feet two inches. If you had a 6x6 120 rollfilm slr with a 65mm semi-wide-angle lens, you could photograph the man looking pleasant,and have the background looking nicely out of focus. At times like this, a larger capture area and a commensurately appropriate focal length would produce a more-pleasing out of focus look to the background than using the tiny DX sensor and a very short lens. At times like this, bigger is indeed better.

It's difficult for some to comprehend, but FX format is a capture size 2.5x larger in area than DX. DX format is fine for many types of photography, but it is a decided and definite hindrance to in-studio photography of anything even remotely large,like a 6'5' tall man who is posed standing, or a family group that wishes to be shown full-body standing or 50-50 standing and seated...the DX format is new,and was brought about for purely economic reasons. As soon as an affordable full frame d-slr, the Canon 5D, was made available affordably, tens of thousands of portrait,wedding,and event photographers worldwide rushed to buy the camera. I myself as a Nikon user,bought a Canon 5D several years ago, simply because it allows me to use 24x36mm capture area, longer lens focal lengths for each angle of view, the resulting shallower depth of field, and the ability to deploy 85-105 and 135mm lenses in places like my back yard, in my living room, in my garage studio, and on-location wherever I find myself. The 2.5x larger area and the longer "normal" lens of FX format means that an entire repertoire of poses are easy to shoot,and look professional,and are easy to light. These days I see otherwise competent people photography shot with DX cameras, and I see the backgrounds are in good,sharp focus--every wrinkle in the paper is visible, every crease in a muslin is in-focus, and all sorts of distracting background elements are rendered in sharp focus. AND, the background's width is wide, due to small capture area,the use of short focal length lenses,and photography done at distances that are at, or reasonably close to the hyperfocal distances which SHORT LENSES HAVE. The shorter a lens, the quicker it gets to hyperfocal distance. The small size of the DX format,with its need for short lenses,and it tendency to make a photographer stand far away with a lens longer than 50mm, is a TRIPLE WHAMMY,with deep depth very common with DX cameras. With larger formats, the norm is more weighted toward SELECTIVE FOCUS, unless extreme effort is made to achieve deep depth of field.

Trust me when I say that the long-lived 24x36mm capture format has been around for a long time because it is very versatile, and it allows a photographer to compose his pictures the way he would like to. Once one gets down into the ultra-miniature formats, there is nothing but deep depth of field,and with a camera with a hyperfocal focusing distance as short as two feet from the lens, one loses basically ALL control over depth of field. This is what I call the "Point and Shoot Digital Look". It looks ghastly. Who would attempt to become a serious portrait or wedding photographer using a Nikon CoolPix camera? Who would suggest that such a camera is a good tool for portraiture and wedding work? I know this has been repetitive, but this is a first draft, written without an outline,and right off the top of my head, but let me summarize by stating this: the 24x36mm capture format is the absolute smallest format one ought to consider if one wishes to photograph people in a world where backgrounds are either 9 or 12 feet wide, and where ceilings and light stands are seldom taller than 13 feet, and where electronic flash systems are needed to light things professionally and repeatably and predictably for clients who are paying for professional results. And for the photographer, 24x36mm is the absolute smallest capture size that will give you FULL use of 85,90,100,105,135,and 180 and 200mm lenses where they produce high image magnification images with extremely shallow, moderately shallow, shallow, to moderate, to moderately deep depth of field effects--depending upon YOUR decisions of shooting distance, aperture, subject to background distances,and focal length. Note the variables the FX format gives: shooting distance, aperture selection, subject to background distance, and focal length; that's a pretty nice set of four parameters that the 35mm or FX format allows the photographer to work with.

The DX format camera's inability to utilize the full image circle of so many 35mm-based lenses means that when one buys and uses a DX format body, the CAMERA is determining the kinds of pictures that can be made. This cropping-off of the outer edges of each lens's image circle on a DX camera means it is very difficult to photograph a standing, six foot tall man or object a at focal length longer than around 70mm or so indoors, unless the room is huge and the camera to subject distance is measured at 30 feet or more. With 24x36 and larger formats like 645, the photographer has a lot more control over his depth of field, and his camera-to-subject working distances,and with the range of depth of field options that an be produced. For those who wish to become portrait shooters or wedding shooters, please ask a professional who has actually set up a successful studio,or worked in one how he feels about the DX versus FX issue, and consider that in the "people photography" field, one has to direct people, talk to them nicely,and get them to cooperate, and to make them look their best. One can not do that when one is 30 to 47 feet from the subject (a set of DX-camera minimum shooting distances for 85-105-135mm lenses). It only makes sense that having a wide range of creative options over the final results makes for more-successful,and more-varied photographic results than being hemmed in by a short lens,a small sensor, and near-hyperfocal depth of field under a large percentage of real-world "people photography" situations. If you seek out the advice of another photographer in any type of "people photography" field, you need to make sure that their qualifications are relevant to the type of photography you wish to undertake. Ask about the portable strobe systems they recommend, the light modifiers they suggest, the studio flash they suggest,the light correcting gels they use,what types of grids and reflectors and barn doors and gobos and scrims they suggest, what types of light stands they suggest, and what types of camera equipment they themselves have used personally. In short, do not ask a nature shooter, or a sports shooter or a street shooter to give you sound advice on studio- or location-based portrait or wedding work, because it is a whole different ball game--one in which you will be "given" a subject, a paying client, and be expected to produce the "optimal" image for them, in a place or location where a lot of the physical constraints are out of your immediate control,and where practical considerations like light stands,ceilings, background lights, paper rolls, are ALL pre-determined. In many types of "people photography" creating images with distorted limbs,odd-shaped heads, and ungainly-looking bodies and limbs will kill your sales. Unlike in a lot of types of photography, in people photography one often can not "eliminate parts of the subject" like one can when photographing moss or lichens or ferns. In studio and location people photography,there are often very real limits imposed by the studio or location, the lighting, and the camera.

Today, discussions about camera format size are often polarized,and polarizing. Many 4/3 shooters feel that this subject is an affront to their choice of camera, and many APS-C or DX shooters believe that this discussion is slanted against their preferred choice. There are also many people who have NEVER used a medium format camera, a 4x5 camera, or even a 24x36mm capture camera,either film or digital, and whose understanding of these issues is rather fuzzy, or non-existent. These folks often cite how they can do this or that, but they often have no REAL experience, no ACTUAL basis for their position. To those folks I want to say that the depth of field calculators found on-line are certainly helpful and interesting, but the qualitative differences between a portrait shot with an overall depth of field band of 20 feet versus one shot with a depth of field band of 34 feet might "seem",on paper and in the abstract to be not that different, but when seen in a print or even an on-screen image, the degree to which a background is in focus or out of focus depends greatly on the format of the capture medium. TO me, 35mm or 24x36mm is the absolute-smallest format that can TRULY throw backgrounds out of focus under most people photography situations without resorting to "extreme" measures, extreme lenses, or extreme techniques or unrealistic shooting situations. To my eye, the vast majority of DX format people photography suffers from excessively well-focused backgrounds--muslins that show wrinkles, city backdrops that pull my eye from the subject, restaurant backgrounds where the background is in-focus enough that I can see a waitress taking an order,and determine that the customers both have moustaches and eyeglasses, and so on,ad infinitum. The QUALITATIVE differences between FF and DX format captures shot under the same,exact,identical situations are quite large--much larger than many people actually realize,simply because the smaller DX format cameras have been the most commonly-available ones for going on nine years now,and many people have not shot 35mm film or FF digital,and so they have no basis for comparison. Let me put it this way: I see so-called "professional" photographs done in which every wrinkle, every sponge stroke in a painted muslin backdrop fabric is rendered sharply, and creases in seamless paper show up as well; that is a HUGE problem with DX sensors, and NOT a problem with a FF digital sensor,using the same lights, the same studio, and the same lighting setup and the same flash power levels.

Cameras behave very differently,based on their capture size and the lenses used with them. Depth of field is not exactly "linear",and once one approaches within about 60 percent of the hyperfocal distance with a small-format camera, the depth of field "effect" becomes one not of selective focus, but of EVERYTHING being more or less in acceptable enough focus to recognize background objects; unfortunately or fortunately,depending on one's needs, the smaller the capture format, the more this effect is true. Look at this article to see that the APS-C Nikon D2x is a deep depth of field,small-format camera,and the Canon FF camera allows shallow DOF http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/phototechnique/essay07/essay.html

On large format cameras like 4x5 sheet film objects outside the "best" plane of depth of field will be "less in focus" than if the photographer is using a 120 roll film camera and 6x7 cm capture, and by the time one gets to 24x36mm, very deep depth of field is achievable when the lens is well-stopped down,even on lenses that have a telephoto or narrow angle of view; by the time one gets to consumer digicams with their itty-bitty little sensors, focusing at as close as 15 inches can put the lens and its entire range at hyperfocal distance. The old 4x5 format sheet film camera has a tendency to be classed as a format that is characterized by SHALLOW depth of field.The various 120 rollfilm formats typically offer moderately shallow DOF. The venerable 24x36mm or FF35mm or FX digital format camera has a lot of flexibility in its depth of field characteristics largely because the lenses available offer either very long focal length, or very large wide aperture sizes like f/1.2 or f/1.4, or BOTH very long length AND very wide apertures like the 400mm f/2.8m as well as wide-angle lenses of shiort length and wide aperture like Canon's 24mm f/1.4, as well as wide angle lenses like 14mm f/2.8's that can be used wide open or stopped down greatly. The DX format cameras offer significantly greater depth of field than FX format camera do, at every focal length and f/stop. Exceedingly deep,almost limitless depth of field is available with hundreds of today's compact sensor digicams. Kodak invented the miniscule Disc Format camera in the 1970's specifically and with intent to create a film format so small that focusing the lens was NEVER needed--ever. They succeeded; compact sensor digicams and cell phone cams utilize this principle to this very day--make the capture format very,very small, and a VERY short lens can capture almost unlimited depth of field when focused at 1.5 to 2 feet. There's no way to say this delicately, but the DX format d-slr is a poor choice for commercial photography situations where the photographer must go out to locations and is confronted by tight working quarters and inadequate space. It seems that on location photo shoots, often times one arrives there,and the place is under construction,or there's "not as much space as we used to have", or "we can't shoot in there", and with a DX camera you run into space constraints where you have a very narrow range of focal lengths that can be used--and that is "it". It can be very frustrating to be caught in a tight space situation and have to shoot a DX format camera with a wide angular field of view on the lenses we actually have, like 20mm or 24mm,etc, and also being rendered UNABLE to deploy anything longer than a 70mm lens much of the time!

Because studios and locations present finite limitations, and lighting equipment has finite limitations, it is imperative that a person who wants to enter into a "people photography" field not be limited unduly by his camera and its fundamental nature. If one selects a DX format camera, one has in doing so, seriously limited his creative potential,and has seriously hampered his ability to deal with the limitations found in modern studios,buildings,and with modern lighting systems. Anybody considering becoming involved in portraiture or wedding photography really needs to understand one thing,and that is that the 24x36mm format camera has been a potent,viable tool since the late 1920's, while DX and 4/3 and the various small-format digital cameras are very new to the scene, and are clearly second-choice tools among those who seek the highest quality images with the most flexibility and the fewest "shooting headaches" from their camera equipment. There are already enough variables to contend with without being forced to deal with a camera that throws away half of a lens's field of view,and which forces you to use short lenses, with deep DOF, and wide angles of view in almost 80% of indoor situations. DX is a handicapped format for people photography. There-I've said it. DX format cameras are handicapped for people photography. Both in the studio,and on-location.
************Here is a very useful on-line Field of View Calculator for those who'd like to compare how restrictive,or expansive, lenses are on bodies of various capture formats, like the EOS 5D and Nikon D700 series, as well as smaller-format cameras with 1.5 or 1.6 FOV factors, or the Olympus brand's 4/3 system with its 2.0x FOV factor.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html?focal_length=85&focal_length_mult=1.5&distance=20&ang_horiz_fov=&ang_vert_fov=&ang_diag_fov=&horiz_fov2=&vert_fov2=&diag_fov2=

The Long Awaited and Overpriced Nikon D3x

2008-12-02T22:57:00.000-08:00

What The Heck Is Nikon Thinking? Indeed, what _are_ they trying to do at Nikon Japan? Alienate their core user base? Attract the last handful of medium format film camera holdouts to an overpriced d-slr? Prove that their flagship high-resolution camera can carry the same price-at-introduction as a Canon 1Ds series body? Achieve marketing and production goals that were set two years ago? Mess up their entire product matrix? Piss off thousands and thousands of highly-opinionated,web-connected,vocal users on the web's most important photography community sites? I dunno, but maybe all of those things are what Nikon was trying to do by designing and pricing their D3x d-slr body at $8,000 US dollars. Because they achieved all of those "goals".

Nikon has made a huge marketing blunder with their D3x. Not long ago, Nikon USA's web site had a cryptic,dark picture of a D3-series body with the word "BIG" in the headline, as if they had something "big" they were going to bring to the table. Nikon's failed attempt to build suspense in the weeks prior to the formal announcement of the D3x was a sad,sad commentary. There were rumors Nikon would introduce an MX sized sensor, ostensibly a medium format camera with a higher-resolution sensor than their FX format D3 and D700, which are both 12 megapixel cameras. And now that the world has been informed of Nikon's intention to price their new flagship at a "Big" price of $8,000,there has been a very vocal and disappointed outpouring of complaints all over the world wide web.

A rather funny parody using footage from a movie has come to my attention, The clip is called "Hitler rants about the D3x". It's here on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnwf2RShNV0

Thom Hogan lambasted Nikon's product launch problems and the lack of focus surrounding the marketing for the D3x. Hogan's article about the D3x is well worth reading,in a sad sort of way,but not if if you are a Nikon fanboy or apologist,as many are. http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xcomments.htm

Michael Reichmann, head honcho of The Luminous Landscape announced that he thought about the price on Sunday morning and then called his photo supplier and cancelled his longstanding D3x pre-order because he did not perceive the value of an eight thousand dollar d-slr. He already owns a Nikon D3 12 MP full-frame camera and a Sony Alpha A900,which is also a 24.5 MP d-slr,just like the D3x. Uh-oh...Luminous Landscape gets over a million web hits per month. Bad press there is really BAD.
http://luminous-landscape.com/whatsnew/

As Reichmann said of the Nikon D3x on Dec. 2,2008
"Yes, I can afford it, but I simply find it not to represent good value. After testing the 24MP Sony A900 (which I purchased for less than the equivalent of US $2,500 here in Toronto last month) the thought of paying US $8,000 for a camera that that has the same resolution, the same frame rates, a similar large and bright viewfinder, etc, just seemed to me to be a bad value proposition. The Canon 5DII at well under $3,000 is another current alternative in a full-frame 20+ MP camera.

With the value represented by the Nikon D700 as compared to the D3, and the Canon 5DII as compared to the 1Ds MKIII, I feel that the days of the mega-pro DSLR are numbered for many photographers. Yes, of course they offer superior AF, weather sealing and maybe a slight edge in image quality, but the price differential is enormous, especially now as the world enters a serious recession, if not worse." end quoted passage from Michael Reichman.

Ouch. That's gotta's sting...one of the web's most influential landscape photography website owners, the guy who said "Nikon's back in the game" just a few months ago when the D3 was hot stuff, is now telling his million monthly readers and 30,000 forum members that the $8,000 D3x is not a good value,and is saying that the uber-cams offer, "maybe a slight advantage"over lower-priced cameras like the EOS 5D Mark II and Sonly Alpha A900. Key daggers are 'maybe' and 'slight'.

So,tonight I went looking for examples of photo output from a $2,500 5D Mark II,which I found compared against an uber-Canon 1Ds Mark III 21-megapixel camera and a very costly Hasselblad body,Hassy 150mm CFi lens,and PhaseOne digital medium format back with 16-bit capture. Here's a post I made on the Nikongear.com forum,of which I am a member.

"Informative comparison photos between two 20+ MP d-slr's and a 25 MP Phase one back can be found here.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29821

See photos from a Hasselblad 555 ELD body fitted with a Phase One P25 digital back and 150mm CFi lens and shot at ISO 50 (native ISO) compared with the EOS 5D Mark II and EOS 1Ds Mark III,each with the Canon 90mm Tilt/Shift lens,both Canons shot at their native ISO of 100. The results might surprise you. Studio flash, three heads. At the bottom of the thread,see the 5D Mark II compared with the 1DS Mark III,both cameras using the Canon 135mm f/2 L lens at f/11 under studio flash.
Bottom line: a $2,500 Canon 21 MP body produces studio flash illuminated images that are very,very,very close to those from a 25 MP Phase One back on Hassy optics,and very,very close to EOS 1DS Mark III photos,with both Canons using the same lenses. Canon cannot maintain the 1Ds III's retail price,which has fallen to $6750,or almost to dealer cost. Nikon's $8k price has infuriated _most_ of the people who bought D1-D2-D3 bodies. Nikon alienating their core customer base to chase after phantom "medium format" customers is foolish,and will backfire.

Canon cameras can use Nikkor lenses--even the G-series lenses. Landscape shooters are having a field day using F-mount lenses on EOS bodies. Nikon has already missed the studio medium format wannabe's,who almost all went to the 1Ds bodies four,three,two,or one year ago. Nikon has ticked off a huge percentage of users like me who have shelled out for D1,D1h,and D2x bodies and who have 20 to 30 Nikon F mount lenses. I got burned on the D2x at $5k...my 5D did/still does better in several ways, for less,using both Canon and Nikkor lenses. I doubt that the D3x will yield much better IQ than the two Canon FF bodies OR the A900. For many uses, yes, the D3x is very costly. Nikon's "BIG" campaign has missed the mark among Nikon shooters in the USA,Canada,UK,and Europe. Oh,and Asia and South America. I'm sure the D3x will be a good camera with the best Nikkor lenses. Thank goodness Nikkors also work on Canon bodies. Here's some 14mm-24mm AF-S Nikkor lens shots done on Canon EOS bodies,using the new G-series to EF Body lens adapter that costs about $179 US. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/660637 ---end of my quoted post on Nikongear.com

It remains to be seen if the Nikon D3x can beat the EOS 5D Mark II's image quality by much,or at all. The D3x is reportedly using the same sensel (the light-sensitive area of the sensor) used in the Sony Alpha A900. Both the D3x and A900 have 24.5 megapixel sensors, with the Nikon camera reportedly having a special optical low pass filter designed by Nikon. Nikon talks up its $8k wunderkamera in its 28-page brochure available here http://chsvimg.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/pdf/d3x_28p.pdf.

A trip to dPreview's Nikon D3-D1/D700 forum shows a LOT of disgruntled Nikon users. So what, some might say. Well, here's an article that notes that user reviews,found on the internet,are very,very influential in buying decisions. Among the article's points are that around 8 percent of users on web forum communities create about 80 percent of the content,and that the majority of readers in web communities are very,very much persuaded by the user reviews they read. On-line user reviews are second only to word of mouth recommendations in influencing product buying decisions.
http://www.marketingvox.com/online-reviews-second-only-to-wom-in-purchase-influence-042186/ Oh crap, Nikon had better pay somebody other than Moose Peterson to talk up the D3x's image making potential. Because Michael Reichman and Thom Hogan have given two very strong negative messages about this uber-camera to the serious shooters of the web community. People talk,Nikon,and you've just pissed off the majority of the people who bought D1-D2-D3 bodies. Bad move.

The D3x is scheduled to be available next month,wherever ultra-costly Nikon cameras are sold. But before you buy, consider that a Sony A900 body and three absolutely top of the line Zeiss lenses will set you back about $7,300. Zeiss 16-35,24-70,and 70-200,all f/2.8,all new,and all capable of using the built-in body stabilizing system of the A900. And also consider the Canon 5D Mark II and some nice L-glass lenses, like four of them,could be yours for the price of one D3x body. And do not worry--the D3x's introductory price is not actually $8,000,but it is $7999.95,so Nikon will give you a five cent discount,just to keep your wife or bank manager from crapping her/his pants upon hearing how much you wanna' spend on a new camera body. Unless you live in Canada,Norway,or Australia,where the camera set you back the equivalent of $10,000 US dollars. Such a deal! But do not fret-the D3x cannot maintain its introductory price. The 1Ds Mark II has fallen to $6,750 from $7999,and the D3x will also follow the same pattern of price erosion as the D3 and 1Ds Mark III. It's inevitable.

I Ordered a Fuji S5 Pro-From Scotland!

2008-11-07T02:58:00.000-08:00

Nov. 7,2008-Yes,boys and girls, Derrel is coming home, to Fuji-land. I ordered a Fuii S5 Pro from Ffordes,which is located in Scotland. Price? Including shipping via Royal Mail,I payed $602.26,which is about three hundred fewer dollars than S5's are going for now that B&H Photo and a few other USA dealers have dropped their MAP price from $1599 down to $899. For the lowest price I've yet seen, please hit the web and go to https://secure.ffordes.com/index.htm now through November 9,2008 for a very,very low price. Be aware that for US customers there is NO VAT,and the price is lower than the 449 Pounds quoted.

Last night I perused dozens of S5 Pro sample images on the web at http://www.pixel-peeper.com/ and although I was unimpressed by the softness and jaggies found on the 12 MP S5 Pro 4256x JPEG images,I have heard from many S5 Pro shooters that the smaller, 6MP in-camera JPEG images look much better than the larger "12 MP" images the camera outputs. And,after looking through dozens of S5 Pro images on pixel-peeper.com, I came away with a very good sense of just how capable the S5 Pro is on scenes with high dynamic range.

Although the large, 12 MP JPEG images had a number of image artifacts,the overall "look" the camera produced was quite pleasant for a d-slr,especially on people pictures,which is what I am buying the S5 Pro for. The manager at Ffordes told me I ought to receive the camera in seven to ten days.

Here is a link that has multiple reviews of the S5 Pro http://www.reviewed.com/product/Fuji/FinePix-S5-Pro/external.htm

The thing I wonder is if I'm misdirecting $602 that could have gone toward the purchase of a $999 Nikon D90? Still, the thing I am anxious to see for myself is how well the S5 Pro can shoot in-camera JPEG files,and how well it can handle scenes with extreme dynamic range. Considering that the S5 Pro was introduced to the market at roughly $1900, the idea of buying a brand new one at $602 shipped was just too good for me to pass up, especially since the MAP was almost $1600 two weeks ago, and it appears as if the B&H Photo blowout prices of $899 last week and then $879 this week are about as low as the price will go before stocks of the S5 Pro are finally totally sold-out in the USA.

The Nikon D40 showed me what superb 6MP captures can look like. I'm anxious to get the S5 Pro and put it through its paces.Based on what I have read and my correspondence with S5 owners, I think the S5's AF system will actually perform _better_ than that of the EOS 5D,especially with off-center AF points. And I have also heard some good things about the seven point wide-area AF mode the S5 Pro offers. Looking at the diagrams of the AF points and how they are spread across the image area, it appears to me that the S5 covers the field more widely than the EOS 5D does,and honestly, I'm looking forward to having the AF mode selection control lever right on the back of the body,where my thumb can control the AF mode. No more goofy Canon UI problems. Speaking of which...on Halloween night I shot my EOS 20D in the dark...it really drove home the superiority of the Nikon body control ethos,where the FRONT control wheel ALWAYS controls the f/stop, and the THUMB wheel ALWAYS controls the shutter speed. While shooting in the dark, the EOS 20D was a royal pain in the butt. There were several instances where I struggled with which control would control which exposure parameter,as is the problem with Canon cameras.

Canon 20D-30D-40D-50D-5D models use a four-button control system with each button having more than one functional role,so I am not always _CERTAIN_ which button will perform _EXACTLY_ which function. My analogy-Canon uses a system where the brake,the gas,and the clutch pedals all swap function, depending on what gear you are in. Will the front control wheel change the f/stop,or will it change the shutter speed? That depends on if the camera is in Aperture Value mode or Time Value mode. The controls perform DIFFERENT functions,depending upon the Exposure mode the Canon is set to! Christ on a Cracker,what a lame idea. With Nikon, the front wheel ALWAYS controls the f/stop,and the thumb wheel ALWAYS moves the shutter speed. No guessing. It's a big,big difference from the way Canon does it. Nikon uses dedicated,single-purpose buttons,where Canon uses four buttons on the top deck, each of which has TWO function settings...not so good an idea.

I'm really looking forward to having a camera that can handle wide DR scenes with just ONE shot,and without the need for application of corrective exposures in the field,and then the application of corrective curves adjustment in Adobe Camera Raw at the computer, just to handle bright highlights and moderate low tones in my scenes. I've read all the reviews,again, and the one thing I'm enthused about is the S5 Pro's ability to handle deliberate overexposure,and then to allow me to pull back the highlights when shooting in RAW mode-- I'm pretty pumped about that. I am also really looking forward to shooting some of my better lenses on the S5 Pro,like the 200mm f/2 VR Nikkor and the 105 f/2 Defocus Control and the 300mm 2.8 AFS-II magnesium barrel model that came out right before the 300 VR was introduced. I'm also kind of enthused about shooting the Asahai Optical 135mm f/3.5 Super-Takumar on the S5 Pro,as well as the 70-200 VR Nikkor which I got back when the S2 Pro was king of the hill.

While an S5 Pro at a discount of anywhere from almost a thousand dollars to about three hundred dollars over the most recent retail prices was a BIG inducement in my purchasing decision, what really got me off the dime was a review of thousands of my own images,comparing the color and tonality of the various d-slr's I have owned. In that review of my digital image archives, I examined the bokeh of Canon and Nikkor lenses, AND the overall,total imaging characteristics of the S1 Pro, Nikon D1, Nikon D1h,Fuji S2 Pro, EOS 20D, EOS 5D, and Nikon D70 and D2x. Whew...throw in a thousand or so D40 images I shot and that makes NINE d-slr cameras that I have shot with,eight of them extensively. A couple of those cameras were kind of disappointing on several fronts. A couple were pretty good. A couple were excellent,with some reservations or limitations. But in terms of pleasing color, the S2 Pro delivered really beautiful color. The pictures the S2 Pro made had probably my favorite color. The D2x always delivered the best AF and the fastest response,but had serious,very serious ISO limitations. The EOS 5D delivered the highest resolution,but failed to focus so many times in low-contrast or indoor social situations that it was a drag and I missed a lot of shots with the 5D indoors. The D1h delivered punchy color,good AF with its 11-area AF system and powerful focusing motor,and I shot a good number of newspaper sports assignments with the D1h and had great results as long as there wasn't much need to crop,but the camera shorted out in a six hour rain/drizzle situation,and it became unreliable so I sold it off.

I'm not going to go through each camera I've used,except to say that of all nine d-slr's I've used,the S2 Pro and EOS 5D have been the best color-wise,and while I like the 5D's file quality, I do NOT like much else about it except for its ability to use Nikkor and Pentax lenses via adapter. I vastly prefer the control ethos that Nikon bodies use,with two wheels, each of which ALWAYS control the SAME function--one for aperture,one for shutter speed, and NEVER do those controls switch function depending on the exposure mode,like they do on Canon bodies. I think Canon's body controls for most camera functions are sub-par compared with the way Nikon bodies control things like AF mode,AF points,exposure mode, f/stop,shutter speed, ISO,and basically everything else. Canon's system of controls is poorly thought out and is simply not as good as Nikon's control ideas,systems,and single-purpose buttons and switches. Canon is too menu-driven,and operation in the field suffers. It's as simple as that. With the S5 Pro I KNOW I will get a better control system over AF mode and area, exposure modes,and exposure controls. I'm hoping for better color than Nikon, and better camera control ergonomics than Canon,and I'm looking for a camera that has better highlight rendition that what I am used to,and apparently the S5 Pro has the best highlight rendition and the widest dynamic range of any d-slr ever made. So, I hope to be happy with my $602 S5 Pro.

UPDATE, 19 November,2008: The S5 Pro arrived from Scotland,in undented packaging,and inside the FujiFilm box was a new S5 Pro in a sealed plastic bag with a tamper-proof FujiFilm sealing sticker. The battery charger needed a US-style power cord, which I had on hand from an old,discarded H-P printer. The camera was _immaculate_ and had version 1.09 firmware,which I updated to 1.1 firmware. I am impressed with the solid feel and the "grippy" rubber used for the body covering.

D-SLR Weaknesses By Brand

2008-09-12T21:58:00.000-07:00

Well, here we are,all waiting for the other shoe to drop. Everybody's waiting on Canon's EOS 5D replacement or follow-up or iteration,as the case may be. Some people are wondering if Canon has a really GOOD ANSWER to the Nikon D300/D700/D3 triumvirate. The recent Beijing Olympics showed the world that Canon's former 95% "white-lens dominance" has been lost,and many,many pro sports photographers the world over have shifted to the Nikon camp. I think I saw one web post that said 38 Nikons,53 Canons in one wide-angle shot of the photo pits at one of the indoor venues. The Nikon D3 has that High-ISO thing down,and Nikon makes a sweet 200mm f/2 VR and 300 2.8 VR and has indeed now brought VR to its 60mm macro, 105mm macro, the aforementioned 200mm and 300mm lenses, as well as its 400/2.8, 500/4, and 600/4, and also the 200mm-400mm f/4 VR zoom lens. Combined with world-class lenses and three strong bodies in the D300,D3,and now the D700,Nikon has made major inroads back into sports photography (and other fields too!). Nikon's 14-24mm is a superlative wide zoom,better than almost ALL primes in its focal length range at comparable apertures. The good folks here (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html) call the 14-24mm "Nikon's reference-grade zoom lens. Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S is also a world-class lens that is newer and optically better than Canon's comparably-spec'd lens.

What's wrong with the competition these days? Let's go down the list.

Nikon has some great new bodies, but has a lot of prime lenses which have clunky mechanical A/M switches on the lenses,and these lenses use in-body or "screwdriver" autofocus. Some of them focus with a lot a noise. Most focus best on a "professional Nikon" body, and focus less adroitly whenever used on "lesser" Nikon bodies. Focus speed is actually quite good, but the thing is--there are a number of excellent Nikon prime lenses which must be used as AF ONLY or MF ONLY when under extreme pressure; with the 85,105,135,and 180, if you need to override the AF system, YOU the photographer, must pop the clutch and flip the A/M switch to Manual-only mode. Now, this quirky system would be fine if Nikon bodies used the thumb-actuated AF/MF switch that Minolta invented and which Sony has kept on the bodies of their new line of Alpha d-slrs. Nikon's got GREAT bodies, and a lot of absolutely great , very expensive f/2.8 zoom lenses, and some very extraordinary exotic telephoto lenses, but the short primes 20-24-28-35-50-85-105-135-180 have been left un-updated mechanically,for many years. Make no mistake-the optical quality of in particular the 85-105-135 are very high,but these lenses could definitely benefit from a mechanical re-work to allow 1) AF-S focusing speed and silence and 2) full-time manual focus override 3) removal of the A/M mechanical linkage 4) a corporate re-think on the ill-advised Nikon corporate design trend toward castrated G-series lenses,especially in the medium tele range of 85-105-135-180. Nikon lenses work great on Canon bodies,and mechanical aperture rings on portrait/landscape lenses make them more worthwhile for long-term use.

Sony's Alpha 900 has been in front of the early testers for a month now,and they have found MUCH to like about the big 24.6 Megapixel monster from Sony. My chief gripe about the A900 is the ISO scheme--100,200,400,800,1600,and even higher--Uh,Sony,what the hell happened to ISO 125, ISO 160, ISO 250, ISO 320, ISO 500, ISO 640? Oh,my goodness, I would really,really,really like to have incremental ISO settings between 100 and 320 for studio work. And for indoor bounce-flash work or extended flash, ISO 500 and ISO 640 have been very useful for me with the EOS 5D. I loathe full-stop ISO shifts in a d-slr,and think this is a serious miscalculation in engineering that Sony made. Fine-tuning exposure by adjusting the ISO in relation to electronic flash exposure, or manual exposure speeds, is one of my most commonly relied upon exposure control methods. Whole-stop ISO shifting on a high-end camera like the Alpha 900 makes very bad sense to me. Sony has no exotic lenses except a 300/2.8,but they do have a sleek,new 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 both with ultrasonic focusing and excellent performance,and a few nifty new Zeiss lenses,like a 135mm f/1.8 that's supposed to be the cat's pajamas,and a loud,slow-focusing 85mm 1.4 (hey,NIKON has one of those too!). Minolta's lens lineup and the new Sony lineup lacks tilt/shift optics,has a proprietary flash foot (so your Pocket Wizards need to be hooked up to the PC outlet and thus mounted on an accessory foot or bracket, OR you need a Sony flash foot to ISO flash foot adapter,plus your Pocket Wizard).

Canon's problem is perceptual I think. That is, they formerly were the PREMIER sports marque, the absolute numero uno at world-level sporting events. Every credentialed sports photographer at many events held in 2007 had a CANON camera and lens on his monopod. Nikon has re-captured a significant share of the low-light,action arena with the D3 because for press photography, a 12 MP sensor that offers NO CROPPING OFF OF YOUR LENS'S IMAGE CIRCLE means that indoors, the 135,200,300,and 400mm focal lengths all are more versatile than before. I spent about two years recently shooting prep sports basketball and track about equally much, then baseball, then soccer,some North American football,and for on-field shooting where you have real access, the crop-frame of a 1.5x Nikon was almost always more of a hassle than a plus. The 300/2.8 is a great lens for sports, but in many cases, it is too cropped-off for sports images where some context needs to be shown. It's FAR BETTER to have a full-field image captured from that same 300 mm lens by using a camera that has a bigger sensor than 1.3 or 1.6x or 1.5x. Canon's 18 month saga of serious autofocus problems with the $4.500 1D Mark III 1.3x sports/action/generalist d-slr have hurt Canon. And what has also hurt Canon is Nikon's upping the ante on semi-pro bodies, first with the D200, then the D300,with Nikon effectively introducing real,true "Semi-professional" bodies that had loads of features originally found only in Nikon's better,more costlier cameras. Nikon engineering the D200 to meter with Ai-AiS lenses was a development that I predicted,and which came true. With the D300, Nikon went one better,and gave the D300 nearly the same AF capabilities as the flagship model. In a nutshell, Canon has not done a lot of innovation with the D30,D60,10D,20D,30D,40D,50D family of semi-pro bodies,and there's a perception that Canon has failed to innovate at the semi-pro body level, and the company's "sports camera" with its chronic autofocus problems gave Canon a real black eye.

The last time Canon's semi-pro body was better than Nikon's semi-pro camera was at the 20D stage. Since that time, Nikon has been beefing up the feature set of its cameras, very,very greatly,while Canon has kept feature sets similar and just refined things a little bit with each successive iteration of its semi-pro placeholder body. In the entry-level body category, Canon has deliberately dumbed-down many entry-level cameras,and that decision has hurt them. The 1D Mark III AF problems were unfortunate for a sports camera,and it's been like 18 months of he-said-she-said with the 1D Trey's AF issues. The perception is that Nikon has made some really GREAT new cameras at several price ranges,and Canon has been caught not innovating. When Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape said Canon was failing to innovate, about a zillion serious amateurs nodded in agreement. Reichmann,long a Canon fan, has recently begun to review and to BUY and SHOOT Nikon cameras simply because as he put it, Nikon is back in the game. The "game" that Canon once held a lock on...

Pentax is the roadmap to lenses company. Over the past 18 months Pentax has clearly posted,on their website, their lens roadmap,and it's been interesting to watch how Pentax has worked on its lens lineup,with its very appealing pancake primes,and its range of very carefully-considered DA* (DA Star) lenses. Pentax has a certain,devoted following,and they do have some nifty boutique items, but they are scarce on exotics,and have no tilt-shift lenses, but I think they will continue to fill out their lens lineup as it becomes feasible to do. So far, Pentax seems to be a 1.5x only company,body wise,and their new zoom lenses are mostly crop-sensor coverage models if I am not mistaken. The disappointing out of camera JPEG engines Pentax keeps putting in its d-slrs is a disturbing trend and a mistake I cannot understand being made over and over and over.

Olympus and its E3 have claimed the color accuracy crown over ALL other d-slr's Pop Photo has tested (which is most of the d-slrs,actually), but Oly's not doing so great with the 4/3 thing and its line of cameras for every budget. The PICTURES Olympus yields,especially when shooting in-camera JPEG mode,are very good,with a lot of life,vibrancy,and a fair amount of in-camera processing. Since so much of d-slr sales involves 35mm legacy users, Oly is bound to suffer,since it had a fairly small base of 35mm Oly SLR users after they abandoned the OM 1, OM-2, OM-4 line and went AF back in the mid to late 1980's. Oly's lack of support for its existing user base back in the day brought bad blood,and although Oly had one of the first "successful" digital cameras back in the D1 days, Oly has since that time developed its offerings far too slowly to keep up with the other camera companies,and has been focusing on the 4/3 mount,which has some very good, but very expensive lenses available. To me the smaller-than-APS-C format of 4/3 is not that appealing--except for its aspect ratio, which looks VERY easy to frame with. The 4/3 format uses a 2.0x FOV crop. Oly has fewer lenses than many makers, but most are of very high optical quality and ALL of their lenses are digitally optimized, which is something other makers cannot claim.

FujiFilm has,or has not,entirely abandoned the d-slr market,depending on which fortuneteller's crystal ball you've had read for you. Fuji,using the F-mount,has been an alternative camera choice for Nikon shooters in need of a d-slr dating back to 2000,and with the S1-S2-S3-S5 line, Fuji d-slrs have been very nifty cameras for portraits and weddings and for general hobbyist uses. Fuji has made some great dslrs in the past,but alas, it's hard to see Fuji continuing in the d-slr biz past the S5 Pro. The SuperCCD layout has a big file storage penalty (double the size needed per MegaPixel,compared with normally-arrayed Bayer sensors) in JPEG mode, and in RAW mode, the 6 Megapixel S5 Pro raw .RAF files are an absurd 25 megabytes each! Fuji's SuperCCD system,especially in the later two models S3 and S5 had two sets of pixels, those for highlight recording only,and all the other pixels,which allowed for a lot of leeway in overexposure error,strong daylight lighting with shaded areas,and other high-ratio lighting scenarios,etc. Sadly it appears,due to lack of product announcement that the Fuji d-slr line is coming to an end. I think it will be sad if Fuji pulls the plug now, now that Nikon has the absolutely killer D300 and D700 bodies on which FujiFilm _could_ build an S5 followup upon. Needless to say the D300 and D700 bodies would be spectacularly better than the donor N60 and N80 and D200 bodies which Fuji used in the S1-S2-S3 and S5 models.

In closing "waiting for the other shoe to drop", I think we need to be mindful that 2008 is a great year in which to be involved with photography,and we need to stop,and carefully count our blessings. Six and 10.2 MP entry level cameras are available everywhere,discounted or discontinued. Used Canon 30D and soon 40D bodies will be available shortly. The new standard in the semi-pro/enthusiast market segment is 12.3 to 15.1 high-quality megapixels. Nikon's D80 is being updated,but apparently not actually replaced,so D80 prices ought to drop lower once the D90 gets itself established. And WOW! but the D90 looks fantastic at higher ISO settings,like 3200, especially compared with the D2x.

Nikon D90: The World's First D-SLR With Video

2008-09-03T21:36:00.001-07:00

Pre-Photokina, September 3,2008 A day after Canon announced the 50D, Nikon announced the D90,which features what Nikon officially calls the D-Movie Mode,which allows the D90 to capture beautiful 24 fame per second video at 1280x720 pixels, or 720p. Stop by Nikon's official D-Movie demonstration web page at http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d90/en/d-movie/

A few Nikon-provided specifications are as follows:12.3-megapixel DX-format CMOS imaging sensor: Nikon's EXPEED image processing technologies, breathtaking image fidelity is assured.
Continuous shooting as fast as 4.5 frames-per-second: Fast 0.15ms power-up and split-second 65ms shooting lag
D-Movie Mode—Cinematic 24fps HD with sound: Record cinematic-quality movie clips at up to 720p HD (1280 x 720 pixels) in Motion JPEG format, enhanced by NIKKOR interchangeable lens quality and versatility.
Low noise ISO sensitivity from 200 to 3200: High signal-to-noise components and design deliver exceptional performance, even at high ISO setting.
3-inch super-density 920,000-dot color LCD monitor: High resolution, 170-degree wide-angle viewing guarantees confident image review and movie playback.

Suffice it to say, the D90 is the first d-slr to offer a video capture mode,and at an estimated street price of $999 US dollars, I think the D90 will sell very,very well in the niche formerly occupied by the now two year-old Nikon D80. The D90 is said to offer D300-like image quality,even at elevated ISO settings, and has a 12.3 MP effective capture size on a DX-sized or 1.5x sensor. The D90 is said to use the same easy to understand UI as the D40/D60 Nikons, and to offer similar in-camera retouching and image editing capabilities. "I want one!"

Canon's 50D is a 15.1 MP model,and a continuation of the 20D-30D-40D line of bodies from Canon. The 50D is slated to sell for $1299,and frankly, I think the D90 will knock the socks off of the 50D in this class/price range,with the Nikon slated for fall 2008 availability at $999. The Nikon will cost less, be 12.3 MP, offer great High-ISO performance,and will shoot 720P video at 24 fps. The video shot by the Nikon D90 looks GOOD! Google the web for samples.

The 50D's claim to fame is a 15.1 MP sensor and finally, a first-class LCD screen on the back, one that's finally comparable with those on the Sony's and Nikon's of this time frame. The 50D however, appears to me to have a strong family resemblance to the 40D,with a few improvements. It's lost .2 fps off the top firing rate of the 40D which was 6.5 fps,and this camera is at 6.3 fps, which is basically still in the same league. My question however is whether the 50D's AF system is as versatile as that found in the Nikon's D200, D300,D700,and D3; from what I've read between the lines in the Pop Photo coverage of all these cameras, the 50D's still just a little bit behind the Nikon camera in terms of overall focus system capability,configurability,and control (input control advantage going to Nikon and its larger multi-controller system).

I honestly have to agree with the Popular Photography testers who,despite admittedly being Canon shooters themselves, find the clear,single-purpose controls of Nikon's User Interface a bit better than Canon's multi-function system which uses four buttons,each of which has more than one functional role. My personal gripe is shared by the magazine's editors: a four-button control system with each button having more than one functional role means that one is not always _CERTAIN_ which button will perform _EXACTLY_ which function. My analogy-Canon uses a system where the brake,the gas,and the clutch pedals all swap function, depending on how you access those controls. Will the front control wheel change the f/stop,or will it change the shutter speed? That depends on if the camera is in Aperture Value mode or Time Value mode. The controls perform DIFFERENT functions,depending upon the Exposure mode the Canon is set to. With Nikon, the front wheel always moves the f/stop,and the back dial always moves the shutter speed. No guessing. It's a big,big difference.

Pre-Photokina, September 9,2008 The official press embargo on the Sony Alpha A900 full-frame 24.6 MP d-slr was lifted,and today Luminous Landscape and dPreview both have write-ups on the new big kid on the block. I've read both field test reports,and both reviews have high,high priase for the new Sony's operation and control system,as well as its build quality and its engineering,design and execution as a CAMERA that works well in the hands. Very well. Great viewfinder. A nice,well-sorted camera to use a bit of Brit-speak. A photographer's camera. A great-handling camera with very,very good resolution and a super-duper new flash unit. And maybe the best viewfinder image on the market,bar none. And the price of this five frame per second wonder? Announced at $3,000. Just like the Nikon D700. Three grand. Note, 24.6 MP is higher than the megapixel count of the former MP champ, the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III which has 22.7 MP. I've seen one side-by-side comparison of the new FF Sony and the FF 1Ds Mark III on one of the reviews,and using first-generation RAW conversion software for the Sony A900, it appeared to me to resolve roughly the same as the big Canon. The Canon is currently priced at $7895,while the Sony is priced at $4,889 less,at only $3,000. The Sony with grip added gets high praise from the two reviewers, and another hands-on professional photographer who attended a debut event featuring several A900's and a live model reported that he found himself ga-ga over the Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 prime telephoto.

As of Sept 9,2008, Canon has not revealed the 5D's successor camera, but Canon HAS had a teaser image of a Canon body, 99 percent obscured in shadow, with the taunting words "Destined Evolution" up on its USA website since September 5. What exactly "Destined Evolution" means will be revealed very soon I would imagine. More then.

Powering Studio Flash On Location:Tronix Explorer 1200 Ws

2008-07-26T20:23:00.000-07:00

I recently received my Tronix Explorer 1200 Ws,which is the name of a fairly lightweight,portable pure sine wave inverter, or in plain English, a portable power supply for studio electronic flash units. The price? An amazingly reasonable $279,with a shipping charge of $45. Last week,I ordered one,and got it within four business days via UPS. It was shipped in a clearly labelled outer cardboard box,with my name and address on BOTH sides of the carton,and inside the power supply was enclosed in a second cardboard box,which was protected exceptionally well by an all-encompassing coating of one inch thick,dense closed cell foam sections,some glued together to form corner brackets. Packed like it was a national treasure,this double-cardboard packaging was the most secure I have ever seen. Again, the Explorer was packaged and padded beyond belief with a well-engineered packaging SYSTEM that was better executed than any I've ever seen.

Here it is during some of its earliest functionality tests. Just a few snapshots http://www.pbase.com/derrel/tronix_explorer_battery

Made in the Phillipines by a company called Innovatronix, the Explorer 1200 is the lighter,lower-powered,lower-cost model the company's website tries to gloss over. Innovatronix also manufactures a dual-battery model that costs more, about $349,not $279, but which has doubled batteries. And doubled weight. And faster recycle times. And which can have a battery added to a piggyback outlet,should one need additional power modules during a shoot. You get the idea. I went for the base model, the original, the one that started it all for Innovatronix. http://www.innovatronix.com/prodindex.asp?offset=15

The Tronix Explorer 1200 Ws gives me fast recycling with the Brown Line D402 power pack,and the unit offers TWO 115 volt outlets,so it can power two monolight strobes, or conceivably two power supplies. There's a slight,audible hum from the unit when it is working, but it's a lot quieter than a Speedotron 102 fan-cooled head is,so... At the lower power levels,like one light at half power in asymmetrical distribution mode with the D402 in the B channel (150 watt-seconds),recycle time is about one second. At full power,asymmetrical in channel 3 or 4, or 300 watt-seconds, it seems like recycle time is about 1.5 seconds, while on 110 volt AC, recycle time at FULL power of 400 watt-seconds is listed by Speedotron as being 1.7 seconds,while the Explorer recycles one head at 400 watt-seconds in about two seconds. My timings are rough,very non-scientific estimates.

http://www.innovatronix.com/prodindex.asp?offset=15

Overall, the Tronix Explorer 1200 Ws battery provides a lightweight,portable power supply for the D402. Innovatronix notes that modeling lamps draw a TON of power,and must be kept off to maximize battery charge and to keep flash shot capability up. Somebody noted that four seconds of a 250 watt modeling lamp is the equivalent of one full-power pop of 1000 watt-seconds....so....one is supposed to shoot without modeling lights on.

Luckily, Speedotron's M90 flash heads use three fairly conventional bulbs; officially M90's use three 40-watt bulbs, but I've purchased a few Brown Line M90 heads which have three 25 watt Sylvania lamps,and they work quite well. The Tronix Explorer WILL RUN the modeling lamps,but at the expense of a lot of battery life,or so I am told. I'm kind of giddy at the prospect of being able to run a 400 or 800 watt-second power supply,or two monolights, while far from electric outlets. Sure, the thing weighs 15 pounds....but I've been used to 27 pound power supplies for years. To me, the EXplorer feels pretty light when carrying it from room to room. It's not "that" heavy,really. It's a pretty simple,straightforward product. If you Google it,you can find a review or two. Frankly,I am surprised at how little press this unit has received,given its price,and the cost of competing options from Profoto,Speedotron,and Paul C. Buff Enterprises and their Zeuss line,etc.

The idea of powering the versatile three-outlet Black Line 405 and the convection-cooled Black Line 103 head set I bought for $40 to $45 per head on eBay makes me feel pretty glad to be living in an era of such amazing consumer electronics. The Profoto 600B weighs less,and also has a two-outlet,600 w-s power supply for $2,475 for the 600B and then about $700 apiece for two heads. I'm thinking that the Brown Line D402 at $59-$109 used is a pretty good value. I got a Brown Line D604 four-outlet pack for about $100 recently. And M90 heads go for as little as $33 to as much as $55 each on eBay,so I think the Tronix Explorer 1200 and any one of the five current Speedotron power supplies between 400 and 800 watt seconds in either Brown Line or Black line would make a likely candidate for pairing with the Explorer for remote shooting with affordable studio lighting equipment. As far as a small and lightweight power supply, the Black Line 405 is very small and weighs only five pounds,and three fan-free Black Line 103 heads would make a lot of sense with a 405 pack. In Brown Line, the 402,604,and 802 packs all weigh between 10 and 11 pounds,with the 604 and 402 both being smallish. Head-wise, in Brown Line M90 heads make the most sense for lightweight heads with low-draw modeling lamps,but for mounting speedrings, an M11 head makes more sense. MW3U heads are very small,but use 150 watt quartz halogen lamps...but with the modeling lamps off, MW3U heads work great in umbrellas.

The manual for the Tronix Explore states that, "with the battery fully charged most flash units will have recycling times 50% faster than what is stated in this guide", and then goes on to provide what I would call worst-case scenario specifications, which are as follows: At 150 w-s 2,000 flashes at approximately 1-2 sec recycle time. For 300 w-s flash,performance is 1,000 flashes at apprx. 3-6 sec. recyle. With 600 w-s flash, it's 500 flashes with apprx. 8-15 second recycle time. Frankly, I think this battery can do better than 8 to 15 seconds with the Speedotron D604 power supply,even at full discharge of 600 watt-seconds. It powers the Black Line 405 with one 103 light head and 400 or 200 w-s very,very well,and it also powers the D402 power pack with M11,MW3U,or M90 heads with aplomb. I am very,very impressed with how the Tronix Explorer 1200 runs both the Brown Line D402 and M90 or M11 or MW3U light heads, and the Black Line 405 pack using model 103,fan-free heads.

The "1200" part of the name comes from the design parameter of being able to power most 1200 watt second and lower-powered flash units. It is NOT intended for "digital" flash units. And thankfully, most studio flash units are not digital,so many,but not all, ProFoto,Speedo,Comet,Novatron,Dyna-Lite,Elinchrom,Bowens,JTL,Photogenic,Alien Bees, White Lightnings are candidates for use with the Tronix Explorer 1200. Speedotron Force monolights are not compatible with this,since they are digital. The Innovatronix website has a compatibility chart covering dozens and dozens of monolight and box and cable flash units made over the last 20-25 years. What the battery can NOT power are a number of "digital" monolights and one series of DynaLite packs. See http://www.innovatronix.com/compatib.asp for the full list of compatible monolights and flash systems. According to the manual while the 1200 Ws is designed for most flashes up to and including 1200 watt-seconds, "You can still use it with a 2400 Ws flash unit although at much longer charging time, i.e. 20 seconds."

After having had the unit for about a month now, I can say that I am well-satisfied for the $279 + $45 shipping that this is a very,very good battery source for Speedotron Brown or Black Line 400 Watt Second 3- and 4-outlet power packs. It will run the modeling lamps and not break circuits using two 150-watt quart modeling lights,but I have not tested it with any more draw,like 3 x150 or 4x150 watt quartz modeling lamps, but the idea is to set the lights properly,and use the modeling lamps very sparingly,and shoot with them off most all of the time. Recycle times are quite fast over shoots of 45-50 frames,which is the longest duration I've used the battery at one session so far. As per the manufacturer's suggestions, I have left the unit plugged in to an AC outlet constantly when not in actual use in order to maintain absolute battery life and performance. In terms of bang-for-dollar, and in terms of its two-outlet 115 volt AC design, I think this is one of the niftiest,lightest power supplies one could hope for. And, the best part is it will easily turn "studio lights" into "location lights".

Paul C. Buff Enterprises makes its beautiful Zeuss line of portable powerpacks and flash units, and Speedotron makes the rugged Explorer 1500 watt-second unit ,and Profoto has the 600B, but it's $2,400 for a 2-outlet pack and $700 apiece for light units,making a $3,800 Profoto 2-light head portable flash source exceedingly costly for just two heads that might be modified by umbrellas or softboxes,or used to bring up ambient levels.

I hear that Profoto lighting equipment is very good,but I've seen too much spectacular PHOTOGRAPHY done with mundane flash units made by Norman,Lumedyne,Vivitar,Speedotron,and so on to think that one absolutely MUST have the Profoto brand to get professional quality lighting results. Stick a $700 Profoto light into a 36x48 Chimera softbox with a diffusion baffle in it,and how is the quality of the light emanating from that modifier going to vary from say a Norman or Speedotron light head with a "similar" reflector (or no refl.)? Assuming similar reflector or bare-bulb use inside a softbox, I think most good circular flashtubes will perform similarly,so for softbox use, I can't see spending $700 per light head as being a good value proposition,when a $300 to $150 Speedotron light unit will,I think, provide similar lightquality coming out of the softbox's front.

If the light unit's reflector can fill an umbrella's bowl,then the fit between reflector,light head,and brolly is a good one: I cannot imagine that with a grid and diffuser on any brand's 7 inch reflector that the light output is "that much" different,or that much "better" between any number of good top-level flash systems,and the three main portable powered flash systems (Profoto,Speedotron,and Zeuss from Paul C. Buff) all require owning a particular brand of flash units,and nothing in those three systems is cross-platform-compatible, shall we say. The ability of the Tronix Explorer 1200 Ws to power any of hundreds of different monolights or dozens of power pack and head systems makes it a very good equipment investment since it easily powers studio lights into action far,far from AC outlets. Without needing to buy into any of the several proprietary systems from Speedotron,Paul C. Buff,ProFoto,JTL,Lumedyne,or Quantum.

My feeling is that in terms of bang-for-buck, the Innovatronix Explorer 1200 Ws hits a very sweet spot,and is usable with almost ANY flash unit I've personally ever heard of. It converts the studio flash units I already HAVE into portable flash gear and is brand-agnostic,while allowing me to use much higher watt-second capable gear than even Q-Flash or Lumedyne portable flash units. So,if you want to get in on the newly popular trend of overpowering daylight with flash on-location, the Explorer battery system might just be worth looking into. No matter what brand of monolights or power packs you have, the Explorer batteries do what you want: they create POWER for whatever non-digital flash units you plug in to that squat little 15 pound box and its two AC outlets.

My 101st Blog Post: Inexpensive Lighting gear

2008-07-19T17:29:00.001-07:00

For my 101st blog post, I figured I'd make it a potpurri, from the French word. A mixed bag of things. First off, I've got to say,I've started looking into eBay as a way to find new,different products,at lowball prices. Oh,it takes a while--the good deals are not always easy things to get. And there are a lot of listings to wade through. I've purchased some stuff very affordably,and have to pass along some of these items to people who are looking for "value" items. Here are a few things I have purchased for use with my JTL 300 monolight. These items may or may not be adaptable to all flash heads or all monolights. However,many of the following types of light modifiers have a "universal mount" which is a generic way of saying a one-size-fits-all or generic type of mount that will allow you to mount various flash units to the rear,using either two adjustable bolts, or three bolts, or four adjustable bolts, or two "arms" forming a type of V,with two adjusting screws that tension the device on--you get the idea....a universal or generic adapting system that fits reflectors within a specific range of diameters, like 5 inch to 7 inch, or 6.5 to 7.5 inches.

Here are a few things I have purchased for use with my JTL 300 monolight. These items may adapt to other brands of monolights and flash heads with DIY modification,or by bolting two speed rings together,etc. Similar items are also available from other eBay stores besides the ones referred to here,so look around on EBay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Softbox-w-Beehive-Eggcrate-60cm-4-Studio-Flash-Soft-Box_W0QQitemZ190236427124QQihZ009QQcategoryZ79008QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Softbox w Beehive Eggcrate 60cm 4 Studio Flash Soft Box from OEC Camera in League City, Texas. This item actually works pretty darned well,although its metal speed ring fits my already filed-out JTIL monolight a bit tightly,and I found initial assembly of this softbox difficult. Its speedring is beautifully made, but this box uses very short,stiff support rods,and I found the speedring with its pivoting support arm receptacles overly-engineered,and this unit's rotating,lockable speedring added a LOT of weight compared with the other softbox's similar but more traditional and more-simply engineered rotating speedring design. In terms of adding directionality to the light, the eggcrate works wonders,and also cuts the light's output down quite a bit, which is a welcome thing to me. For the amount of money spent, this is a very,very good deal for a 24 inch softbox with eggcrate. It has a highly silvered interior fabric,a removable internal diffusing baffle,a velcro-on recessed front,and a velcro-in eggcrate attachment.

The first thing I shot with this was a quickie demo of how a Nikon to Canon adapter works. The eggcrate takes off a LOT of the spread of the box,and makes the light lower in output by a significant amount. http://www.pbase.com/derrel/nikon_to_canon_lens_adapter_demo

$24.95 plus about ten bucks shipping. An incredibly worthwhile twenty five buck type of product. Just an incredibly nice little softbox with a difuser inside, a recessed face, AND a well-fitted eggcrate,this is simply a must-have accessory for the JTL 300 monolight user.

********
http://cgi.ebay.com/Barn-Door-Snoot-Softbox-Set-Monolight-Studio_W0QQitemZ360069549637QQihZ023QQcategoryZ79008QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
This $48.75 item is a 24 inch square softbox,paired with a universal 4-door all-metal barndoor that adapts to many different brands of lights with 6.5 to 7.5 inch reflectors,and which includes a roughly 20 degree honeycomb mounted on a square,and three colored filters which are also square metal mounted,plus a frosted diffuser in a metal frame. So you get a 4-door barndoor set, with a sturdy metal honeycomb grid, a diffuser,and a red-yellow-blue gel on metal square frames, PLUS a snoot with red,green,blue,and yellow small-diameter filters for the snoot, and a small diameter honeycomb grid that fits the small end of the snoot. Shipping was around $11.50,and it came with a metal speed ring that fit my JTL monolight PERFECTLY! I took a few shots of Spencer standing on the cedar chest and siting in the brown chair wearing a new pair of blue shorts,using the JTL monolight,and the lightweight, 24-inch square softbox worked well.

The 4-way barndoors attach using a wire and dual-bolt system that alloww different brands and sizes of reflectors to be fitted to the 4-door barndoor set. On the front of the bardoor frame is a set of three steel hooks or clasps,which secure the grid,or a filter holder,or the diffuser,or all three things on the front of the barndoor's frame. This inexpensive 4-way barndoor unit fits Speedotron 7 inch reflectors very,very well,and although the grid is a bit coarser than I would like for much use, it DOES function reasonably well as a background grid. The 4-way barndoor frame unit does NOT fit the 8.5 inch M90 unit's reflector,but could be gaffer taped into place to make an emergency barn door. The honeycomb in its metal mount frame could however,easily be taped over the 8.5 inch M90's reflector,and that would work okay. In terms of affordable,adaptable stuff to spiff up two or three monolights, this kit could hardly be better. A 24 inch square softbox with a metal speed ring, a snoot with filters and a grid, and then a 4-way barndoor set with a diffuser,a honeycomb grid,and three colored filters on metal frames,for under fifty bucks? A very good value,and priced very fairly.
*********
http://cgi.ebay.com/Beauty-Dish-41cm-Soft-Reflector-4-Monolight-Speed-Ring_W0QQitemZ360070378299QQihZ023QQcategoryZ79008QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Another item I bought was a 16 inch beauty dish for $31.95. The most annoying thing about this product was that it did NOT FIT and WOULD NOT MOUNT to my JTL Versalight 300. The dimensions on the three mounting lugs were simply not accurate enough for it to fit,so I removed the mounting faceplace from the light unit,and filed out all three lug receiving apertures, enough so that the beauty dish would fit on-and very tightly at that. The lugs appear to be folded sheet steel rectangles,and I fear that they are hollow inside,and even though they need to have some metal filed off of their tops to get into line with the Bowens 3-lug specification, I'm a bit worried to do that. As it stands, the reflector fits on VERY snugly,and it is difficult to remove. If I were going to use the JTL 300 on a daily basis and wished to interchange light modifiers with any type of regularity, I would not be satisfied with the fit,since as I said, this reflector's 3-lug pattern is simply NOT up to specification. However, once it is on,it stays on,and this beauty dish is a very nice light modifier that could easily be left on all the time. All other accessories I own in Bowens 3-lug fit okay to great, but on this reflector each of the lugs are too wide AND the total outside diameter of the lugs is too large by maybe .0125 inches.

Performance-wise, I liked what I saw from this all-metal beauty dish + white nylon diffuser sock when I shot it to make some informal portraits of my wife and son. Its light is soft,since it is diffused first by the baffle,and NO direct light hits the subject from the flashtube,and then that light is diffused by the white nylon fabric. This means that the light is doubly diffused. Since the JTL has a heavily-frosted flashtube shroud (unlike Speedo,which has clear Pyrex shrouds over its flashtubes) and a heavily frosted,large modeling lamp, all of the light leaving the JTL is diffused a 'bit' more than on Speedotron heads and this type of baffled reflector maximizes softening. I made all tests with the supplied nylon diffuser sock. This beauty dish + diffuser creates s nice,white,perfectly round catchlight in the eye. This reflector's output produces deeper,blacker shadows than an umbrella does,and has just a small bit of specularity on human skin. Overall, I think it's a very,very valuable reflector addition to a small monolight such as the like the JTL 300,and I found it easy to aim,easy to lock,and easy to balance on the 300,which allows the photographer to slide the main body of the flash unit forward or back on its dovetailed mounting rail,to balance particularly front-heavy reflectors/modifiers. As an inexpensive beauty dish, I thought this thing was well,well worth the $31.95 price. The fact that it required me to file out all 3 holes on my JTL 300's mounting ring was disappointing,and I just have to say it--the machinist who designed this was flat out OFF, flat out WRONG,on the exact dimensions of the 3-lug Bowens-style mounting ring that is integrated onto this reflector. When you need to take a mill bastard file to your light unit, you know the ACCESSORY'S dimensions are off. And even now,it fits on VERY tightly. I am strongly considering fitting the rear of this with a wooden block and a Speedotron Universal Mounting Plate to adapt it to 102 and M11 light heads.

Despite the poor fit the beauty dish displayed in the Bowens 3 and 7/8 inch 3-lug mount, the light output this thing gives with its supplied white nylon,elastic diffusion sock is pretty good,and I could see JTL 300's being used with this dish and diffuser combo for old-fashioned portrait lighting with good results. I have no problems with the quality of the light or the design or the price point--it's simply that the mounting lugs are too wide AND too large in diameter,compared with four other 3-lug products I own so. I do think this is a candidate for adapting to Speedotron 102 light heads, by way of a $14 Speedotron universal mounting collar simply being bolted onto the reverse of this reflector,and the flashtube of a Speedo unit doing the work instead of the diminutive little JTL's tube. For the money,this is a very,very good product in terms of light quality and construction, but the fit was UN-USABLE on JTL right out of the package,and required modification to my monolight itself. The modifications I made with the file however, did not make the monolight unusable with other 3-lug accessories,so that's a good thing.

For Alien Bee users, check out the 22-inch beauty dish and diffusion sock combo here http://www.alienbees.com/22r.html
**********
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOIBSAA:US:11&Item=190220289633
This 43-inch white umbrella has a black back,and costs only $13.95. It is a pretty good reflecting umbrella,and the design and construction is worth the money. I would say buy a pair of these,and get combined shipping. This is the type of umbrella I prefer for use with a Speedotron head-an umbrella large enough to diffuse the light quite a bit,and one which helps to control spill. I have very,very little use for shoot-thru umbrellas anymore,and this reflecting umbrella is the type that I have come to prefer. Its relatively large diameter makes it softer than a smaller umbrella,but not so HUGE that it is impossible to work with in smaller rooms.
************

My 100th Blog Post: Where To Go From Here: Ruminations and Musings

2008-06-29T00:14:00.000-07:00

June 29,2008-One rumor has it that on July 1,2008 a new d-slr from Nikon will be announced. Purportedly to be named the D700, it will be an FX or Full Frame sensor camera,priced at $2,995 in the USA ,with a half-height body with an optional control/battery grip,and the usual Nikon niceties--like Nikon's CLS flash control system,Nikon's matrix metering,Nikon's legendary ergonomics,and so on.It all sounds wonderful to me,really. http://asia.cnet.com/2008/06/19/nikon-s-mid-range-full-frame-dslr/?scid=rss_c_crv

How one assigns value to a d-slr has changed over the years. When I payed $3,000 for my used D1 in early February of 2001, it was the first used D1 available in my area,and it was then "a good deal". I recall just a few months later when Canon's EOS D30 sold for $3,000; you might remember the 3 megapixel EOS D30 as the first successful,popular Canon d-slr,made before the short-lived Canon D60, which came right before the 10D,20D,30D,40D series. At one point, my Fuji S2 Pro's $2,495 initial price tag offered real value as a Nikon F system body,and was worth every penny of its initial cost at introduction. Such were the times back in 2001, 2002,and 2003. It is now mid-2008 and the d-slr landscape has changed,and cameras and their value propositions are in a state of flux in 2008. One article I read pointed out that now, consumers are MUCH more selective about their d-slr purchases than they used to be. It has become more difficult to "wow" or to impress customers. I think what 'selective' translates to is that customers who are already invested in a lens systems are LESS inclined than ever before to simply buy the latest body as an automatic no-brainer action. I think at this stage of d-slr development and pricing,skipping a generation or even two might make sense, whereas a scant few years back ago,one could hardly afford to sit still and not upgrade bodies as soon as a new model came out--and offered really significant improvements over the body that came before it. The year 2008 promises to be a big year for upgrading cameras.

Nikon's flagship models in the D2 and D3 series have been priced at $3499 to $4999 over the past few years. Canon's professional 1.3x camera of the day has been priced around the $4k mark for a few years now if I am not mistaken,while Canon's highest-MP count d-slr model has always carried an 's' in its name,and has been priced at $7,999 since 2002,when Canon established the first truly successful and 'popular' full frame d-slr mode, the 11 MP 1Ds. Gosh,it's getting to the point where high end consumer d-slr's from Pentax have a pixel count of 14.6 MP. Prices and what a camera is "worth" might rapidly change this year; Nikon,Canon,and Sony might have some real competition for one another during 2008.

According to the article above, Photokina 2008 could see the Nikon D700, the Sony Alpha 900,and the Canon EOS 5D Mark II models all vying for attention. The Sony Alpha 900 people are widely anticipating is expected to be a rugged,solid body with an excellent viewfinder, a 24.6 megapixel full-frame imager,capable of capturing images at 6.3 frames per second. Not too shabby,eh? B&H just dropped the 1Ds Mark III to $7,849 right now,having just come down from $7999. Canon's other FF camera ,the 5D, is now three years old and has dropped to roughly $2,000 or even under,retail,while Nikon is reportedly looking at a $2995 introductory price for its mid-level FF camera. Where,price-wise, will Sony try to slot into this marketplace for full-frame d-slr bodies? Just how professionally built might a Sony Alpha 900 FF d-slr be?

I fully expect that Nikon's D700,as seen in the brochure above, will be the next mid-range Nikon FX format d-slr. I'm disappointed at the price tag of $2,995 they put forth,and hope it will cost less. I await the day when a full frame,mid-level Nikon sells for $1599,but that time is quite a few years in the future I'm afraid. What I think is interesting is how Canon's 5D will fare once there's another mid-level,half-height full frame d-slr option. Considering that the above web article says the D700 will offer the 25,600 ISO of the D3, it makes me think that the imager might be the same or very similar to that of the D3 body. I anticipate that the quality camera design of the Nikon D200 and then D300 models will be ported over to the D700,and that it will have a wonderful feature set that today's now almost 3-year-old EOS 5D does NOT possess. It is today June 29,2008 and I have heard a rumor that on July 1,2008 Nikon will announce the D700.

The EOS 5D is a fine imager in a mid-range body. It has a weak AF system,with a very high degree of center-weighted focusing. It produces VERY high quality files,even at elevated ISO levels and under low lighting conditions. It's got a great balance between sensor size--full frame 35mm size sensor--and MP count, at 12.8 MP. Very similar to the Nikon D3's size and MP counts and pixel density and pixel pitch....in other words, the 5D's balance between sensor size and MP count is a sweet spot that Nikon's D3 is also very close to. It seems to me that Canon's iteration of the 5D ought to be not an iteration,but a wholesale UPGRADE to a more feature-rich,faster body,with a broader AF area,and overall a much,much better-specified camera body than one would find in a mere iteration called 5D Mark II.

From looking at image quality comparisons of the 5D and the D3, the 5D does very well against the D3--until the ISO's get high. At the higher ISO settings, the Nikon D3 simply is unmatched. However, given how good the EOS 5D's sensor is and how good it has been for going on three years, my feeling is that Canon's follow-up camera will have significantly good enough High ISO performance that it will easily be able to equal the Nikon D3 in such metrics as resolution,noise,and color saturation and color accuracy at such ISOs as 6,400, ISO 12,800 and maybe even ISO 25,600. I really think Canon is behind Nikon in terms of focusing systems, multiple remote flash sophistication,and those types of things, but my feeling is that Canon's 5D follow-up is going to be one hell of a good camera.

What about Sony's anticipated full frame model, the 24.6 megapixel monster that many expect to be premiered in September at Photokina? What type of price point will Sony be aiming at with that type of MP count? Does Sony expect to price their flagship in the $4,000 price range to compete against Canon's 1.3x model? Surely Sony does not think its flagship can command the $4995 price of a Nikon D3, nor the $7999 price of the highest megapixel EOS model. How good will the image quality of an Alpha 900 be? Will Sony try to extract a high price for their camera,or will they strive to balance unit price with sales volume? What does Sony have to do to make their flagship a desirable model and a good sales performer for the new Sony d-slr division? Is Sony capable of delivering a totally integrated,fully-professional 24.6 MP d-slr worthy of a look by serious photographers? Or will it be a niche camera with a very high price which allows Sony to sell a lot of expensive Zeiss-branded lenses to a fairly elite set of users? So many unanswered questions ought to become clear by late September of 2008.

Part II-Well,today was July 1, and Nikon's D700 was announced to the world. As predicted,it was 12.1 MP, $2995, uses the same D3 focusing pattern/system,and uses the same motor drive/battery grip as the D300. The D700 will meter with Ai and AiS lenses,and has non-CPU lens inputs so you can get EXIF info with pre-AF lenses. Frame rate is a respectable 5 fps without grip,and 8 fps with grip added. Looks like a nice camera,but real,validated, ISO-standard-compliant ISO settings of the D700 will top out at 6,400 and all ISO values above are "expanded" which means slightly sub-par in my book, so it's not designed to compete on even footing with the D3 in the uber-lowlight,ultra-high ISO scenarios that the D3 currently rules for sports/action/PJ shooters and anybody else who likes or needs to use high ISO settings. And,since Nikon offers NO fast lenses in the wide angle range,you're gonna need those higher ISO settings in poor light or when high shutter speeds are needed. If Nikon had a 24mm f/1.4,like Canon does, can you imagine the low-light PJ potential of such a lens with the D3? Canon also offers a 50mm f/1.2 L and an 85mm f/ 1.2 L series lens. Nikon's behind on lens speed in the wideangle and normal and short tele prime areas, but I expect Nikon will soon be able to address the needs of future users as soon as their resources are a little bit less focused on cranking out as many bodies as possible.

Nikon's been busy designing lenses for the DX format for some time now,and it seems as if their latest FX format offerings the 14-24 and 24-70 and 200-400 and 200 f/2 VR and 300 f/2.8 VR are all extremely high quality optical designs,with steep price tags and unmatched performance. Concurrently, Nikon has shored up the consumer zoom category by offering a lot of small,affordable designs, as well as adding VR and better optical performance to its ED-glass 70-300,and also managing to make several kit lenses with surprisingly good performance on DX bodies. Nikon is weak in what some call the mid-range zoom,at both the consumer and enthusiast price points. Nikon _DESPERATELY_ needs a modern,quality 28-85mm or 28-105mm or 24-105mm zoom that covers the mid-range focal lengths. Nikon has abandoned this segment,and I think BADLY needs to come up with a good,modern, AF-S lens that spans 24 to 105 or 28-105. Canon's 24-105mm f/4 L series lens is one I own,and it's a pretty good lens--significantly better than my 24-85 AF-S,which is if you ask me, a disappointing lens to have to rely upon.

Canon has been working pretty hard on its professional sports/PJ cameras,overcoming the autofocus problems of the 1D Mark III in only a few months, but seriously lagging behind Nikon on feature set on its mid-level bodies 30D and 40D,yet offering similar imager performance at substantially lower prices--for admittedly less-sophisticated bodies, but bodies which nevertheless deliver comparable images to enthusiast Nikon bodies. Canon owns the highest-MP count crown with the latest 1Ds III iteration now at over 22 MP,with the 1Ds II formerly the king at 16.7 MP.

Canon seems to have stopped developing its autofocusing systems and body features like ultra-high quality LCD display units and feature-rich bodies,and things like AUTO ISO. WTF is that "PRINT" button doing on so many Canon cameras? Still,the price of the 40D makes for a lot of camera for the money,and the Rebel line is doing well. And after almost three years unchallenged on the marked, Canon's "economy" EOS 5D 12.8 MP Full Frame camera is still churning out good quality files in the hands of conscientious shooters. Great files can be made with the EOS 5D--I know, I've shot some that I like very,very much,and when shot right the camera delivers fine images. But it is still a rather pedestrian camera BODY,with a merely midllin' autofocus system, wrapped around an excellent imager. Prices for the 5D have fallen to around $2,000 or less,which represents a very good value in my opinion.

Pretty much everybody I know says Canon needs to introduce an updated 5D in 2008. But I think Canon ought to do more than merely update the 5D with say a better AF system,and maybe a better microlens array and a little bit better-optimized imager and image processing software; I think that Canon ought to take a page from Nikon's D200-D300-D700 book, and put pro-class autofocus and pro-type features in their mid-priced bodies. I really think that Canon needs to do some more body-building efforts in its line of serious enthusiast/semi-professional bodies. Comparing the sophistication of the D200 to the 30D and 40D, or the D300 to the 40D shows that Nikon charges more money for a body that offers significantly more features than what Canon is offering and selling. I think that the enthusiast/pro-sumer/hobby markets have a lot of feature-driven buying,and that many people these days are willing to pay those extra five hundred dollars for a camera that offers a number of easily-compared positive marks over the other guy's offerings. Beating the competition on specifications is important: Nikon's idea of sharing focusing modules between top- and mid-level bodies is a stroke of genius and is a very positive selling point. Pick up an EOS 5D or 30D or 40D and compare it with a Nikon D200 or D300--there's simply no comparison as to which camera brand has the better feel and the bigger,more-encompassing feature set.

I've blogged before on what the EOS 5D is like; it could use some serious updating,mostly on the autofocusing system,and also the metering system could be improved, but mostly,the body needs some more controls over autofousing,and could use a dedicated function button for better adaptability to changing situations,and the LCD is badly,badly behind the standard Nikon has established. New Nikons have INCREDIBLE LCD screens,while those on Canon's look poor by comparison,and the Nikon LCD Screens are actually better and easier to evaluate focus with.

AND NOW FOR THE RUMINATIONS PART of My 100th BLOG ENTRY:
Well, 2008 looks like a great year to be involved in d-slr photography. One advantage Canon EF mount camera bodies have
( but that not many people will care about) is their adaptability to use with lenses in other mounts,via adapter. Some of you might have seen some of my web samples of both Nikon and Pentax lenses used on EOS 20D and EOS 5D cameras. Nikon and Pentax screw thread lenses work pretty well on EOS bodies, albeit only in stopped-down mode. There is now a totally NEW and RADICAL lens adapter which allows the electronically-controlled diaphragms on Nikon's newest G-series lenses to be controlled on Canon EOS bodies. The adapter is available through 16.9.net for about $190 US dollars. There are a number of very exquisite Nikkor lenses in the G-style mount like the 200/2 VR and 70-200VR and 14-24 and 105 Macro as well as the 200-400 VR,and the new big teles in the G mount. Macro,wide-angle,and supertele manual focus and AF-D lenses made by Nikon can be easily adapted to Canon bodies using $17 adapters,but the G-series adapter is $190,but a 200/2 VR is a $4,000 lens,so a $190 adapter allowing it to be used on a Canon d-slr is a good deal in my book. Canon curently offers FF, 1.3x,and 1.6x sensor bodies,across a wide spectrum of prices. Canon has a good lens lineup,but still the BEST ultra-wide lenses in the 14-15-18mm focal length ranges carry the Zeiss brand, or are found all in one lens in the new Nikkor 14-24mm AF-S G with Canon struggling to build anything truly STELLAR for the folks who shoot down in those short FL ranges. Head to head testing results done by the folks at 16.9 shows the new Nikkor 14-24mm zoom lens is as good as or better than Canon's 24mm f/1.4L by most landscape-shooter metrics,and BETTER than the Canon prime in terms of corner resolution! PLUS, the 14-24mm Nikkor has also got the wide-wide thing covered too!

One advantage Nikon has,in my opinion, is prettier bokeh in a number of lenses. Like,take for example Canon's 100mm f/2.8 EF Macro,which I have owned since I got my 20D. What a horrible macro lens in terms of bokeh and out of focus highlight shape--it's cruddy. Contrast that with Nikon's 105 AF-S VR-G Micro-Nikkor,which has quite good bokeh. Canon has no 105 AF-D Defocus Control lens,a real bokeh champ,and a beautiful imager. Nikon's 85mm 1.4 AF-D is a bokeh champion. On crop-sensor,when you have a lot of OOF highights in the background the 70-200 Nikkor,which is a G-series lens, blows the pants off of the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS,with the Canon producing football-like OOF highlights, the Nikkor true round shapes and beautiful defocus. And, probably the prettiest imager ever built is the Nikkor 200 f/2 AF-S VR-G prime,which I bought early in its production and have been just amazed by its bokeh,sharpness,contrast,and autofocusing speed and surety. For sports use, the 200 f/2 VR and D2x is the best AF combo I have ever used; in lower light levels, the f/2 of the 200mm seems to give the camera a little bit better than the D2x and 300 f/2.8 AFS-Mark II lens,which is in itself an amazing autofocusing lens. The 200/2 has Nano Crystal coatings and is very flare and ghost-resistant,which is a big,big problem on much long,fast glass.

Canon's lens offerings are respectably good, but while Canon has been developing better sensors, Nikon has been producing new lens designs that are really quite amazing,and as these things go,affordable. Not cheap, but not Leica-expensive either. Nikon's 14-24mm has caught Canon flat-footed I think. Nikon's 24-70mm f/2.8 was past due,but now it has been created and thus it is is newer and better than Canon's 24-70mm pro lens. Nikon's 300/2.8 VR is newer and better than Canon's,and on crop-sensored bodies, Nikon's 70-200VR is better than Canon's similar pro lens and all the independent mfr. lenses too,and the Nikkor lens has better bokeh as well. I do not think Canon has introduced a "new" conventional macro lens in over a decade now,while Nikon has redone its 60mm and 105mm macros just recently. Nikon is now trying to equal Canon with 24mm,45mm,and 85mm tilt/shift lenses which I predict will all be the equal of or better than any and all Canon's now aging 24mm,45mm,and 90mm TS-E designs that have been on the market for what is it now? 10 years?

In terms of bokeh,and also exotic new designs with VR, Nikon's been doing amazing work with each new "top-quality" lens it has produced for the last four years. Nikon's been going about a lens first-bodies second kind of approach over the recent past,probably because Nikon is a much smaller company than Canon,and Nikon made a decision to design numerous lenses that can be relied upon for a good,long time. I think Nikon has finally caught up to Canon with the D3 camera and sensor combo. And in the mid-market bodies, c'mon....the EOS 5D and EOS 40D bodies are very plain Jane compared with the Nikon D200-D300-D700 lineup. Nikon's been putting the PROFESSIONAL features into the high-end amateur bodies like D200-D300-D700,while Canon has been basically micro-refining the EOS 10D to perfection with the 10D-20D-30D-40D,yet making almost no real "progress". No offense to those of you shooting the EOS 40D,but compared to the Nikon D300, it's like a 1967 Mustang compared to a 2008 Mustang...the 40D is still showing a tremendous amount of the 10D's core,and it has shown the Nikon focusing button control rip-off for the first time,as Canon tries desperately to improve the 1D and the semi-pro D-line model with slightly better control over autofocus operation by incorporating a single AF ON button, like the AF ON Nikon has had for years and years. Lens-wise,on affordable stuff I think Canon wins pretty easily. On more-exotic and simply newer lens designs,at least for crop-sensored bodies, Nikon's the clear leader bokeh-wise and in terms of filling niches, Nikon's done an amazing job of producing a FEW select,spectacular optics that are designed to be part of a six-lens complete kit,with the focal lengths of 14-24,24-70,and 70-200,60mm,105mm Macro,200mm,200-400mm zoom,and 300, all covered with super, brand-new optical designs that are state of the art. Plus the above-mentioned series of three tilt/shift Nikkor lenses. Lens advantage: NIKON. If this were a football game, I'd score it Nikon 35, Canon 27.

Final thoughts: Now that the D700 is actually OUT and in the hands of reviewers and NPS early orderers,we can see that the D700's higher range ISO performance is actually virtually identical to that of the D3,and that the boosted settings of the D700 are really quite GOOD. So,my pre-release feeling that the D3 might be a bit better than the D700 at the ultra-high ISO settings of 6,400, 12,500,and 25,600 might be in error: reviewers whom I trust have said the D700's imager is exactly the same as in the D3,and that the image quality of the D700 is the image quality of the D3. Wow. All I can say is--Canon's 5D follow-up camera had better be pretty damned good. And yet still,at the current $1,900 price, the 5D represents an amazing deal in image quality for those who can handle the rather pedestrian subsystems the 5 has. And to those of you who have never shot a 1-series or 2-series Nikon or a 1-series Canon,please stop trying to convince others how good the 5D's AF system is. No, the 5D's autofocus system is far from qualifying as a pro-caliber AF system or a pro-caliber body. The 5D is a great imager,in a mid-level body design that's 3 years old.

My 99th Blog Post: Speedotron Overview 2008

2008-05-31T13:30:00.001-07:00

Speedotron Studio Lighting Equipment Revisited in 2008

I recently submitted a review of a Speedotron 11.5 inch snap-on diffuser to the Adorama web page,and there's a link to that mini-review at the end of this blog entry.

I want to go over some experiences I've had using Speedotron 400,600,800,1600,and 2400 watt-second power packs in both the Brown Line and Black Line product lines. This year I bought some of Speedotron's smaller, lighter-weight power packs, as well as some used Speedotron light units in three models which I had never before tried nor owned (Brown Line M90, and Black Line models 103 and 202 VF). For many years, the only Speedotron equipment I had used was the higher-end "professional" stuff. But thanks to the low prices of eBay auctions, I was lured into trying some very inexpensive "lower-level" Speedotron lights and power supplies. In addition to my multiple pieces of e-Bay acquired equipment, I bought a brand new 3-outlet Black Line 405 power supply new from Helix Camera.com's eBay store for around $469.

I want to emphasize that some of my preconceptions about the various pieces of Speedotron equipment were wrong. I had anticipated that Brown Line M90 light units would be kind of cheesy, but they're pretty useful. And I was surprised at how great the small D402 Brown Line power supply is when paired with M90 lights. Modern d-slr's have SUCH good image quality at their base ISO settings that it's no longer necessary to have a 2400 watt-second power supply to have control. In fact the opposite is true,and I'd prefer to have a much,much smaller,lighter,and lower-powered power supply than a 2400 or 1600 for most d-slr uses.

I bought into the Speedotron system in September of 1987 with the D1602 power supply which weighs 27 pounds, one M11-Q and two M11 light heads and some grip equipment and modifiers. The power supply and all the original light heads still work flawlessly. Durability is a hallmark of Speedotron lighting equipment,even with the lower-priced Brown Line equipment.

In January of this year I decided I wanted to make a charitable contribution to a youth photography program, in the form of some studio lights and light modifiers, a background support system, and light stands. Enlisting the aid of my friendly photo equipment dealer,with whom I really like to do business face-to-face, he sold me a used Speedotron 805 Black Line power supply, "That has something wrong with it", but which was paired with two 202 VF heads, each with 7 inch umbrella reflectors, and an approximately 9"x30" umbrella-style collapsible striplight that used a heavy,solid steel shaft for mounting through the umbrella receptacle. Testing of the 805 Black Line pack caused the circuit breakers in my house to trip so frequently that I bought a brand new three-outlet Black Line 405 power pack, to use in my testing of the 202 VF heads.

I test-shot and worked with the 202 VF heads...which when fitted with 11.5 inch grid reflectors are very nice and controllable for getting a little bit more or a little bit less spread of light when using a pair of lights to evenly light backdrops. I also found the 202 VF head fitted with Speedo's "standard" 7 inch grid reflector worked pretty well for ceiling bounce lighting, and the ability to focus or widen the spread of light on longer 10-15 foot bounce throws was kind of interesting. The 202 VF light heads are completely modular: the cords come off the heads; the mounting system comes off for more compact storage, and the flashtube cover is long and slender and space-saving. The detachable power cords on 202 VF heads make it possible to store the cords separately, in a vinyl or canvas bag, and to carry flash heads in a relatively SMALL bag or case, compared with 102 or M11 heads, which have permanently attached 20-foot long cables.

Compared with the straightforward design of the M11 and 102 lights, the 202VF light unit with its rotating red focusing collar and accompanying flood/normal light coverage with 35 degrees to 90 degrees or so of light spread makes the light a bit "less-predictable" than the aforementioned heads which offer no focusing or spreading out of the light beam. The M11 and 100-series heads have more-positive lock-on of speedrings and reflectors, due to their rigid nature, but then only the 202VF's have variable beam control,so...the 202 VF's have more adjustability, which means less predictable output,since output is dependent on how wide or narrow you have the focusing collar set to with each light modifier. VF stands for Variable Focusing, with a rotating red polycarbonate plastic ring giving wider or narrower angles of coverage,and widely varying guide numbers.

What was most distressing was the top-heavy nature of the five pound 405 Black Line power supply when used with three Black Line light heads,which have very heavy,weighty power cords. The 405 power supply is SO light that when three heads are attached to it, if the cables are hanging at some point in their run,such as to the back of the set for an elevated hair light, the pack becomes quite top heavy. And it can even tip over if a cable is pulled a bit. Until I had a 405 to test, I'd never dreamed a power pack could actually be TOO lightweight!

The fan-cooled Black LIne 102 head is available widely on e-Bay,and I think I've picked up the last one I'll ever need. With used 102's selling in the $70 to $125 range, and new flash tubes retailing for roughly $104, I view a used 102 bought with either a 7 inch or 11.5 inch reflector,and with a flash tube and modelling light as being a hell of a lot better deal than a new $104 flash tube. For those unfamiliar, a few infobits: the 102 head is the "standard professional head" and it uses what Speedotron calls universal mount,which is their standard two-lug style rotating locking reflector mount. 102's have a heavy-duty push on-push off button that controls a bright 250 watt quartz modeling lamp,and use a 2400 watt-second rated vented Pyrex-covered flash tube that encircles and shields the hot modeling light from softbox or umbrella fabrics, which is nice. 95 % of all 102's ever made have a built-in heavy duty 20 foot power cord, but the very-newest models have a removable, plug-in power cord that detaches at the head itself. Sometimes the fans are squeaky. One unit I got had a loose wire or some problem in the wiring,and performs erratically. I suspect it's unsafe, and the seller made a very kind offer of compensation in the form of two nice,solid Avenger light stands:I accepted his offer of recompense,and I really really like the the taller of the two stands. The Avenger A205S is the closest current product to what he shipped me. Thanks for the kindness Pete! I recently bought a 102 head with protective cover, 7 inch and 11.5 inch reflectors for $120,and it worked perfectly in its initial test session right out of the box,using a 20 inch,deep-dish Brown Line reflector and two layers of white nylon mesh as diffusion material over 75% of the reflector's front
http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/98144800
http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/98144802.

****************BROWN LINE POWER SUPPLIES*************************

In the 21 years I've owned my Brown Line D1602 power supply, it has always been reliable. Power levels are switchable: Full (1600 w-s), Half (800 w-s) and LOW (200 w-s) on a 3-level rocker switch. It has four light outlets divided into two power channels: channel A is made up of sockets 1 and 2, while sockets 3 and 4 make up the B channel. Power is divided either symmetrically or asymmetrically using any of the three power level choices. Shooting the D1602 at LOW power level, or 200 watt-seconds, it's a great portrait pack,able to run two or three lights with me dividing up 200 w-s and barely taxing the capabilities of the unit. It's a crying shame the small, light, affordable 600 watt-second Brown Line D604 does not possess a 200 watt-second LOW power setting, but only Full and Half power settings. The D402 power pack has Full and Half power settings of 400 and 200 w-s, and I find having 200 watt-seconds split between three or four heads is very, very useful.

A careful studying of the power distribution tables on the sides of the Brown Line D402 and D604 power supplies will show that the smaller,lower-powered D402 power supply might actually be the handier one for a person who wishes to use only one,or two,or three lights with a d-slr that shoots best at 100 to 200 ISO. My preference is to have between 200 and 400 watt-seconds of power to divide up between three,or four light heads for "most" single person,indoor portrait shoots. Main light, hair and separation light,and background light is pretty standard for me,and my 4th light might be a fill light. For quickie,simulated available light shooting where I bounce a single flash off of the ceiling,corner,or a wall, I find the D604's one-head minimum output of 225 watt-seconds to be too MUCH power. With my 1987-model D1602, I often find myself deliberately using it at LOW power,which is only 200 watt-seconds. My feeling is that the D604 power supply is designed to be used in either three- or four-light setups almost all of the time,and is in fact,optimal for three- and four-light setups,but lacks power output flexibility in 1- or 2-light configurations. The D402 can supply from 150 to 400 watt-seconds with one light,while the D604 can supply 225 to 600 watt-seconds thru one head. For me, the LOWER powered,one-light output of 150 watt-seconds is preferable in real-world locations with a camera that has a 200 ISO base,or even a camera with a 100 ISO base,like the 5D. However, if I were still shooting ISO 25,50,and 64 films or doing work that required a significant amount of lens extension, the slightly greater power of the D604 would make it the preferred power supply over the D402 most of the time.

There's almost no weight difference among the three smallest Brown Line packs: the D402,D604,and D802B power supplies weigh in at 11,11,and 12 pounds respectively, and all have two-channel,four-outlet designs. http://www.speedotron.com/products/category/brown_line

The Brown Line D402 has the old-style cosmetics in case design,and has toggle switches and not plastic switches. With three lights the D402 delivers 133 w-s per head in Symmetrical, while in Asymmetrical mode it outputs 200 w-s in A and 50 and 50 w-s in B, or alternately it delivers 140 and 140 w-s in A and 70 w-s in B. When using a 4-light setup the D402 gives 100 w-s to each head in Symmetrical mode,and in Asymmetrical mode it delivers only a single power output ratio, which is 120-120 w-s in A, and 30 and 30 w-s in B. These are full-power figures. The D402 has a half-power switch,allowing the prior outputs to be cut in half approximately. Flash durations in the 100 w-s range with M90 units is 1/1600 second, while the M11-Q will deliver 1/3000 second at 100 w-s,and even with 400 w-s pumped thru it, the M11-Q will deliver a 1/1500 flash duration.

The Brown Line D604 LV came out back when I was a young man,and has remained in the line for a long time. It weighs 11 pounds,and is low profile and compact. It follows the Speedotron Brown line pattern of four head outlets,with outlets 1 and 2 comprising the A channel, and outlets 3 and 4 being the B channel. When using two lights the D604 gives 300 w-s per head in Symmetrical mode, and it offers three output options in Asymmetrical mode: the first Asymmetrical option is 300 w-s in either outlet 1 or 2, and 150 w-s in outlet 3 or 4. The second option is 300 and 300 in 1 and 2,while the third two-light power option is 150 and 150 w-s when using outlets 3 and 4 concurrently.

When using three lights the D604 delivers 200 watt-seconds per head in Symmetrical mode,and in Asymmetrical it delivers 300 w-s in either outlet 1 or 2, while outlets 3 and 4 will each provide 75 watt-seconds,or you can plug two lights into outlets 1 and 2 and get 210 w-s out of each of those, while a head plugged into 3 or 4 will provide 105 watt-seconds. With four lights in Symmetrical mode the D604 puts out 150 w-s per head, while four lights used in Asymmetrical can deliver 180 and 180 in 1 and 2, and while outlets 3 and 4 will each output 45 watt-seconds. As with other power supplies, all of these power distribution ratings can be cut in half by switching to the Half Power setting.

If there's a problem with the D604,it is that it is SO powerful with only one light attached. Several lower-end standard version Brown Line light units are equipped with only 400 watt-second flash tubes,meaning the full power of the 604 cannot be used with those lights unless they are upgraded to the Q or Quartz-type flashtubes,with higher W-S capacity. With one light, the D604 will deliver 600,450,300,or 225 watt-seconds, and 225 w-s is often more light output than is wanted,as in this test session shot in my small office,using just one 40-inch umbrella--at its lowest ISO, I was forced to set an f/13 aperture on my Nikon D70 http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/98144791. HOWEVER, as soon as a second light is added, the D604 can deliver very handy amounts of power, such as 150 and 150 at Full Power Assymetrical,or 75 and 75 at low power Asymmetrical,so the 604's main limitation with today's d-slr's is when ONLY ONE light is being used in rather close quarters. The D604 has an Audible Recycle feature that gives a Beep when the unit is recycled; this feature can be turned on and off by pressing the button. The D604 is compact and straightforward,and has a low voltage triggering system safe for d-slr's. This power supply does not seem to be very popular,and it often sells for very low prices on the used market.

The Brown Line D202 is a VERY small power supply, with only two light outlets, and symmetrical and asymmetrical distribution, and a built-in power cord. It uses blade-style synch,and is a very simple unit to operate. It is no longer manufactured. It weighs 6.5 pounds and measures 4.4 x 6.5 inches in footprint,and is 6.2 inches tall. The earlier D200 model had only symmetrical power distribution, but in all other was was identical to the later D202. The D202 works pretty well with the Brown Line Y-cord attachment, which allows an additional light head to be used,and which lowers the power output by splitting the total watt-seconds into two,equal-output connectors. VERY handy! It recycles to 85% in 3.25 seconds

The D202 has only one power level, which is full power. With two lights, in symmetrical mode, each light delivers 100 watt-seconds. In asymmetrical mode, outlet 1 delivers 200 watt-seconds, but outlet 2 delivers 150 watt-seconds. With two lights plugged in, in asymmetrical mode, outlet 1 delivers 150 watt-seconds, and outlet 2 delivers 50 watt-seconds. Guide Numbers are listed as 190, 135, and 95 (in feet) for 200,150,and 50 watt-second power output levels using "Standard Reflectors". At the time the D202 was made, my understanding is that the Standard Reflector was the 11.5 inch, 65 degree coverage model which will NOT accept honeycomb grids. According to Speedotron's specifications the GN of 190 at ISO 100 in feet comes from an M11-Q light head with 11.5 inch reflector and MW9QC flashtube at 10 feet on-axis. Therefore, using the newer, grid-capable 50 degree reflectors, Guide Numbers would be significantly higher than when using the older 65 degree parabolics. Here's a photo of the D202's power distribution chart
http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/114282843

I bought a non-functional D402 and two M90 lights for $150 from eBay,and had the power pack restored to full,perfect working order by factory repair personnel at Speedotron Corp in Chicago for the modest price of $70 for parts and labor and $19.95 return shipping. I also bought a fully working D402 for $129 from eBay on a buy-it-now price. I recently saw one sell for $79.99 on eBay,as a non-tested unit without power cord. Auction prices for D402's are very reasonably low; the pack has been made for years now. Brand new, a D402 4-outlet power pack can be bought from Helix Camera for $361,with warranty.

Before I donated the D402 and three M90 lights to the nonprofit photography program, I tested it out over about a 225 frame portrait session with Jenni, using two M90 lights,one in a 40 inch Lastolite Umbrella Box and one to light a black paper seamless roll with either a yellow or a blue gel over the M90's 8.5 inch standard reflector. I found that on low power splitting up only 200 watt second between two heads, the D402 was a very useful little power pack that had just the right amount of power for close-range,quick-setup portraiture. The flashtube in the M90 delivers a VERY short duration flash when 100 watt seconds of power are sent through it; the flash duration is 1/1600 at 100 watt-seconds, which is very short,and the Lastolite Umbrella Box with the M90 head inserted inside and the diffusing face zipped tightly makes for a pretty efficient light. http://www.pbase.com/derrel/m90_light_units_first_look

I note that in 1987, 11.5 inch Brown Line reflectors were specified as 65 degree reflectors, and were NOT grid-style. And I note that on Speedotron's web site, the newest Brown Line M11 light units are listed as having 50 degree,grid-capable reflectors, just like Black Line 102 and 103 heads typically would be fitted with. My older Brown Line pack D402 pack has a factory-painted Guide Number chart on the side and it says "Standard Reflector 65 Degrees",so this appears to have been an area where Speedotron equipment has been changed over the years.

Back in 1987 when I bought into the Brown Line, the lights had thread-on connectors,which made hooking up and switching rather slow; but at some point, Speedotron switched to BLACK-colored connectors, which just snap on and lock with a firm press into the socket--and they come off with no locking collar-- just a good,firm straight-up pull! Hooray! To me the Brown Line's slow,thread-on connectors had been one of the main drawbacks that Black Line was not saddled with. So, when buying used Brown Line flash heads, realize the "new style" black connectors means faster and easier light set-up and changes.

One thing about the Speedotron brand is that the Brown Line's M11 lights use the same "universal" reflector and speedring mounting system used in Speedotron's professional Black Line light heads,so grid reflectors and many other light modifiers and devices will fit Brown Line M11 heads, as well as Black Line flash heads. The Brown Line M11 head is almost identical to the Black Line model 103 flash head, which means it is fan-free,or convection-cooled,and fairly light, and compact. I just bought four 103 heads this month for $40 to $45 each without tubes or lamps. I have not had a chance to do much more than clean them up and test them briefly with the 405 pack and brand new MW9C flashtubes, which are only 1200 w-s rated,and are really not officially recommended by Speedotron for use in 103 heads. I spoke to a tech there by phone,and he assured me that the MW9C tubes will work just fine in a 103 head as long as the flash power levels are kept below the 1200 w-s maximum,and that on the 405 power supply, the tubes would be loafing along at well below their capacity on such a small power supply,and that my off-list use of these particular flash tubes would be safe and functional. One of the things I like most about the M11 and 103 heads is the quiet,fan-free design each shares,and the same compact size. The cords are heavier duty on the 103's, and the connectors differ, but the 103 an the M11 appear to be the same, basic lights. I often do NOT need a fan-cooled light head,so 103's make sense.

The Speedotron Brown Line instruction manual notes that the M90 light unit delivers a pretty high Guide Number per watt-seconds of power used, which was something I was unaware of. As I said, I had preconceived ideas about how the M90 lights would perform compared with Brown Line M11 heads which are ostensibly "better" and "more professional", but I was unaware that the M90's are much more efficient than M11 heads in delivering Guide Number per watt-seconds used,at least with the 7 inch reflectors on the M11's in umbrella configuration. Looking carefully at my 1987 Speedotron Brown Line manual, it specifies that at 400 watt-seconds, an M90 unit will deliver a GN of 210, while the M11 will deliver a GN of 120 with the 7 inch reflector and a GN of 220 using an 11.5 inch reflector which was AT THAT TIME,spec'd as a 65 degree reflector, while the 16 inch deep pan reflector will deliver a GN of 160. So, in an umbrella type configuration, the M90 light unit's 8.5 inch reflector which is silvered all around the flashtube will deliver a pretty potent f/21 light burst at 400 watt-seconds, while an M11 light and its 7 inch reflector will deliver a less-powerful f/12 exposure. At least theoretically,in a Guide Number sense. One aspect of this information might be that when lower flash output is needed, it might be wise to use an M11 light head with a 7 inch reflector and not an M90.

Angle of coverage of the M90 is a pretty wide 55 degrees,according to the manual; the web site list the new M90 at 60 degrees and the M90-Q as being 65 degrees (the Q has a 1200-watt seond capable flashtube). The M11 head with 1980's 65 degree 11.5 inch reflectors has been a mainstay of mine for lighting up backgrounds,but I've found the M90 is actually pretty handy for lighting background paper. I'm anxious to try out the M90 head a bit more,maybe with a grid or two and with diffuser material,and also it looks like a pretty good light to use with diffusion panels aka scrims. I'd like to have a barndoor set for use with an M90,and I am sure I will buy a couple of Speedotron 8.5 inch snap-on diffusers for use with M90 heads.

There were a number of factors that lead me to donate a 3-light M90/D402 lighting kit to the nonprofit group instead of the Black Line 405 pack I had bought,ostensibly to donate along with two or three light heads. Long-term, I thought that considering ease of use, flash tube replacement costs and modeling light costs ,and the cost of a fourth light, the Brown Line wins out over the Black Line in terms of flash-per-dollar spent,either new or used. Used D402's are selling for $79 to $129 on e-Bay these days,and are available brand new for around $361. I personally think the D402 Brown Line power supply makes a LOT of sense these days. It is a bit heavier than the Black Line 405 pack,and it's a bit larger too, but it has some good qualities. I donated an e-Bay acquired D402 and three M90 light units to the photography program after my test session with Jenni showed me that the M90 head and its eight and a half inch reflector makes for a very good background light,as well as functioning well in the 40 inch Lastolite Umbrella Box enclosed umbrella. The lightweight power cords of the Brown Line are easier to coil,and smaller,lighter and less-pretentious than the heavy duty Black Line cables. On some setups that stretched and elevated the 202VF's 20-foot cables, the 405 power pack was very,very top heavy and prone to tipping over,since it only weighs five pounds,and with the very-lightest of all current Speedo packs, the heavy-duty Black Line light cables are,well,kind of overkill. Black Line 150 or 250 watt quartz lamps cost about $22 to $24, while M90's use three much lower-powered bulbs,like the Satco S4721 25-watt 130 Volt brass-base indicator bulb listed as 2,500 hours...these are the modeling lamps,and they sell for $1.99 each at lighting stores. Each M90 uses three of them. Official bulbs are about $6 each; cheap by modeling lamp standards.

Besides the M11 and M90 light units, the Brown Line has two additional small,lightweight,affordable light units, both built on the same chassis. The first type is the MW3U, which stands for Umbrella. It uses a small,affordable 400 watt-second flash tube and has a small quartz modeling lamp positioned right at the bottom front edge of the fixed,non-interchangeable five and a half inch reflector. The second similar light is the MW3R, which is designed as a backgRound or haiR light,and which has NO provision for mounting an umbrella. The MW3R uses a tall, candle-flame type incandescent bulb for a modeling lamp; the incandescent bulb generates a lot less heat than the quartz lamp of the MW3U, and accordingly, the MW3R can be fitted with a small snap-on snoot. The easiest way to differentiate between the two light heads is to look for the umbrella mounting block underneath on the MW3U. Both light heads are convection-cooled, and there is a 1200 watt-second flash tube available for both light models if one needs to use the 600 to 1600 watt-second power packs with only a single head.

Both the MW3U (umbrella-capable) and the MW3R light units have been made for many years--and there is a " very old" style in both lights; these have a rounded, knurled metal locking knob on the light tilt joint, and those must be used with the old-style SMALL mounting stud that is only 3/8 inch in diameter, so this "very old" style will not mount on modern light stands, unless a 3/8 inch diameter mounting stud is threaded on to the top of the light stand. The "newer" style lights have a brown plastic locking knob, and slip right on to today's light stands. The very-newest style MW3U and MW3R lights are fitted with the black, quick-disconnect connector plugs,and those are the most desirable lights to own for quick set-up and quick changes. The MW3U and MW3R and M90 ALL SHARE THE SAME model of flash tube in both 400- and 1200 watt-second varieties. The standard 400 watt-second flash tubes for M90-MW3U-MW3R are available in coated, and non-UV coated designs, and are priced around $26 per tube,which is a very economical price for a flash tube. 1200 watt-second tubes cost about 3x more.

****************BLACK LINE POWER SUPPLIES*************************
The Black Line 405 weighs only 5 pounds,and has two-channel three-outlet design,while the slightly larger Black Line 805 has three-channel,four-outlet design and yet still weighs in at only 7.7 pounds. http://www.speedotron.com/products/category/black_line

The Black Line 405 has a two-stop variable power reduction switch,which allows dialing down the power in 1/3 stop clicks on a rotating switch control,thus allowing the Black Line 405 to more-incrementally control output than is possible with the Brown Line D402 pack. On balance,the Brown Line D402 pack has four light outlets, while the Black Line 405 has only three outlets,so the advantage there goes to the Brown Line pack for the all-important four-light setups. The Black Line 405 power supply has 2 power channels, 6 ratio combinations, and 3 outlets,so think 400,200,133,and 100 watt seconds with nine clicks of adjustment in dial-down. The Black Line 405 is very small,very light,very simple,and has good dial-down capabilities.It can run three light heads very well,and its five pound weight still seems almost incredible to me.

The Black Line 805 pack has significantly more flexibility, with 3 power channels,19 ratio combinations, and 4 outlets. The 405 pack is ultra-small,ultra-light,and not all "that" flexible,while the 805 pack is only slightly larger,only slightly heavier,and has a significantly higher amount of flexibility. If there's a rap against the 805 Black Line,it might be that some packs develop problems tripping breakers,at least according to a cursory search of the web for user reports of problems; I cannot say from personal experience that the 805 pack has a reputation for either reliability or for unreliabilitity--but I do think many of them are used very hard,and there might be some issues due to lack of maintenance or over-use,such as in rental packs,packs from high-volume shooters,etc.

Originally submitted at Adorama

Speedotron 11.5" Gel Filter Holder

Great With Honeycomb Grids for Hairlight

By Derrel from USA on 5/31/2008

Pros: Attach Securely, Long-Lasting, Durable

Best Uses: Low Light, Indoors

Describe Yourself: Hobbyist/Enthusiast

Use with 100-225 W-S with 10,20,or 35 degree grid at 5-15 feet for superb hairlight effects. Grids are great but using a grid + diffuser gives softer,more easily controlled light in close-quarters portraiture. I love a 20 degree grid with this diffuser added and 2-way barndoors for beautiful,stripbank-like separation or hairlight effects with the added bonus control over spill and the flag effect of the barndoors keeping the lens free of flares.
Also used for for smoothly lighting backdrops,using 2 matched heads with 11.5's + diffusers.These are "essential" accessories for light control within the Speedo system.

(legalese)

Answers To Questions From Readers, May 2008

2008-05-22T23:37:00.001-07:00

I've been away from the blog for a while. I wanted to answer a couple of comments,and unfortunately,I'm not all that handy with tracking down where comments have been left,so I'll try and address a few things that I've been asked about. In answer to the first question a reader asked me, I will simply say I'd favor the Nikon D40 over a good,clean-condition used Fuji S2 Pro. In terms of weight,compactness,and battery performance, the D40 blows away the S2 Pro. Just last week,I took the S2 Pro out,put in a fresh set of lithiums, and four freshly-charged 2500 milliampere hour AA batteries and shot the S2 Pro for part of a day. The battery situation of the S2 Pro is a real weakness of the camera,and a pain in the ass under most conditions. The batteries run out on the S2 in some odd ways,and you need good lithiums in order to keep your AA's endurance up enough to even shoot a portrait session. With a pair of 123A lithium batteries installed in the S2, I can get 350 to 400 shots from a set of four AA batteries, but with the lithiums removed, the camera can be run on the four AA batteries for only 35-60 RAW frames before the AA's are totally exhausted. The S2 Pro is a finicky camera,power-wise,and aftermarket battery grips are a bit tricky to find for the S2 Pro,although most "pro" shooters did modify a grip to their S2 Pros,or bought China-manufactured ones from eBay,and ran their cameras on multiple AA's which added a lot of weight,and size, to the S2 body.

The Nikon D40 on the other hand, has an incredible battery that lasts and lasts and stays charged when not in use,and which can power the camera for 1,000 frames or more, easily,over days and days of use. The D40 is smaller,lighter,and newer than the S2 Pro. I prefer the S2 Pro's dual-button control ethos and lovely color palette, but honestly, the D40 is the camera I would choose to replace the S2 Pro if I wanted a small,compact 6MP d-slr. The one weakness the D40 has is its inability to give autofocus unless the lens on the camera is an AF-S lens. For some people, the D40's inability to focus with screwdriver focus Nikkors and 3rd party lenses is a deal-breaker. After shooting the S2 Pro very recently, I would honestly say that I would rather have the Nikon D40 at $499 than a used S2 Pro,regardless of price. The D40 writes smaller raw files,is smaller and lighter,has a better pop-up flash,and has that wonderful 1/500 top flash speed,and in bright sunlight,the D40 is the better flash camera. While the S2 Pro was groundbreaking in its day, the D40's overall image quality is better,and the file size advantage of the D40's raw files is the main selling point. The S2's DR is no better than the D40's,and the D40 is a very fun little camera,and feels better made than the S2,and is actually easier to grip. My vote goes to the D40 over the Fuji S2 Pro as a generalist camera. For people work,the Fuji still delivers nice images, but with a lot more hoops than the D40 brings with it.

The second article which has received a couple comments is from August,2006 and is at http://derrelonphotography.blogspot.com/2006/08/multi-speedlights-or-studio-lights.html

The poster who uses multi-speedlight setups for lighting locations and interiors might have missed my emphasis on lighting in a studio concept. In studio lighting,of either people or products, modeling lights are critical to success. Lighting locations using multiple,small,easily concealed speedlights makes perfect sense. Interiors are fairly predictable,and multiple SMALL lights,all battery-operated are great for lighting up real estate interiors and creating results which the poster wrote were "not Architectural Digest quality" but which were far better than what hacks get when they shoot with one,single flash,on-camera. My point really is that speedlights like the Nikon SB-800 cost almost four hundred dollars,but give you a far less flash output than 100 watt-seconds fired thru any Speedotron head,of any model,in either Brown or Black Line. AND, the Speedo heads will have modeling lights,which will allow better placement of the lights than when one is winging it with speedlights set into umbrellas. As such, speedlight flashes offer less value for studio lighting than even the cheesiest monolights,let alone Speedotron or Alien Bee or Dyna Lite or White Lightning or any other modeling light-equipped studio flash. Studios are not locations or interiors,and trying to achieve "studio lighting" results using speedlights is best left to very experienced shooters.

One point that might not be clear: I believe learning to use lights requires modeling lights for the best learning. Beginners often shoot like crap without modeling lights,and many lighting beginners make absolutely horrible mistakes when using speedlights in an effort to light things. Beginners benefit the MOST from modeling lights. Experienced shooters can do pretty well without modeling lights,but for the less-experienced, trying to effectively position even one,let alone three flash units,is dicey. Or worse than dicey. I personally do not see the need for automatic exposure calculation of multi-speedlight flash setups as being a necessary feature in a pro-level d-slr,and I think that I would rather determine how much output each flash ought to have....I cannot for the life of me figure out how a camera will be able to make decisions on key,fill,separation,and background flash power levels in a four-light setup. Using a four-outlet power pack with modeling lights,a beginner can visually place and balance the lights to his own eye's satisfaction,using the modeling lights which bring a what-you-see-is-what-you-get benefit when exactly placing one's lights under STUDIO lighting conditions.

As to flash units....monolights are nice,but seem kind of top-heavy when on light stands compared with Speedotron M11 or 102 or 103 light heads. I own only ONE monolight,a JTL 300 watt-second model,and while it's "okay", it's not my favorite type of flash unit.To be fair, the JTL is a new economy-oriented monolight,and is NOT a class-leading product,and my experience with monolights is rather limited. I do think however that the inexpensive, roughly GN 100-150 (100 to 200 watt-second models) monolight flashes of the type that are now popping up all over are a wonderful development, but I've recently had a major change in the way I think about electronic flash. I know Alien Bees are popular beyond all belief. I know a lot of people like the "Bees". But my preference is still for box and cable systems in the 400,600,and 800 watt-second range,using lightweight heads. Still, I see a lot of small monolights that look very,very useful and some of them appear to be excellent values.

A flash meter is a wonderful tool,and I think almost anybody could learn a lot by using the meter to check the ambient to flash amounts,and to se exactly WHAT f/stop outputs the main and fill and hairlight are supplying. One of the reasons I prefer box and cable systems is the repeatability of the ratio of light outputs between three and four light units, and in the case of the brand I am used to, I feel that Speedotron's smaller power supplies like the D402 Brown Line are very,very close to ideal for what I'm using now,which is a Canon EOS 5D at around f/5.6 to f/7.1 with flash. I often make use of an assymetrical power distribution and a 3-or 4-light setup,and for that, splitting 400 or even 200 watt seconds through two channels with assymetrical distribution is exactly the way I want to work,so the two-channel packs work quite well for me,and offer pretty predictable output. The D402 is available brand new from helixcamera.com for $361.95,with very fair shipping. Helix Camera and Speedotron are located in the same building in Chicago,Illinois.

Lens Adapters: Pentax Lenses on Canon Digital SLRs

2008-03-04T19:07:00.000-08:00

I've recently bought some adapters that convert M42 universal thread mount lenses to Canon EF mount cameras. Since the 42 millimeter screw thread lens was made most famous by Pentax, this mount is often called Pentax screw mount. It is also known as universal mount among some people,and the mount style has been used on cameras marketed by Pentax,Praktica,Chinon,GAF,Ricoh,Fuji,and some other manufacturers also.

Why would anybody want to use "old lenses" on a new Canon digital camera? For me the answer, "Just because it's fun to use something new and different and cheap to get interesting pictures," springs to mind.

HOW TO FOCUS MANUALLY:The best way to focus by eye is to set the lens to infinity and to quickly and smoothly rack the lens closer until it "looks good", and then to STOP turning the focusing ring. Usually, that initial stopping point will be very,very close to the correct distance. Many times however,you will have run a little bit past the optimal distance,and a slight reversing of direction of the focusing ring, or a little hitch, will be enough to get you to perfect focus. Trust me: on almost any lens, starting at INFINITY and rapidly cranking the lens closer only until the image "looks good",and then stopping, will result in the most accurate focus,under most conditions. Older,manual focusing lenses by top optical companies (Nikon,Canon,Pentax,and Olympus) were designed to focus by hand and eye and often have relatively longer arcs of travel than autofocus lenses are designed with. Older manual focusing lenses often begin with an Infinity focus distance marking,followed by marked distances of 200,100,and 50 feet being found engraved on the focusing scales of 200mm lenses,for example. Newer AF lenses are designed to be focused by a computer working in conjunction with a small,high-precision motor,and most newer AF lenses have very,very poor manual focusing performance due to a typical Infinity focus distance,and then a mere 10-20 degrees of focusing ring travel until one is focused at 10 meters. Manually focusing a manual focusing lens is easier than focusing most autofocus lenses manually,in my experience.

I recently bought a trio of lenses in M42 mount. I bought a nearly identical-looking pair of Asahi Optical Company lenses, the shorter of which is a 135mm f/3.5 Super-Takumar and the longer a 200mm f/4 Super-Takumar. Both Super-Takumars have the mechanical AUTO-Manual diaphragm stop-down control on the rear part of the lens,which allows one to focus wide open and then to merely "flip" the lens down to shooting aperture without need for counting click stops or visually confirming that the lens has been stopped down to taking aperture. Both Super-Takumar lenses have purple-ish antireflective coatings on the front elements. Both Super-Takumars are all-metal designs,and both are in excellent mechanical and optical condition.

The Super-Takumar lenses have lengthy, scalloped,ribbed metal focusing rings which rotate somewhat slowly but very smoothly,with ample degrees of turning between Infinity, 200 feet,100 feet,and 50 feet on the 200 mm f/4 lens allowing the photographer to set focus by "eye" over an ample number of degrees. While the focus is somewhat "slow", the ample number of degrees of turning allows the lens to be focused without the hair-trigger touchiness of many of today's low-priced autofocus zooms, where the lens has a 45 degree arc of travel lock-to-lock.

The 200mm f/4 Super-Takumar focuses well by hand on the 5D. It has markings for Infinity, 200 feet, 100 feet, and 50 feet, over a span of something like 20 degrees,and that is just the far focusing range; the rest of the footage range has many degrees' worth of turn. The focusing throw is rather long,and it allows you to get reasonably close to "on" without risk of being grossly "out" on focus using the 5D's large but low-magnification finder. I do not have a lens shade for this lens,and when shooting toward the sun in the late afternoon, I've gotten some bad flare from it-arcing, half-frame bad. The 200 is sharp close-in. At 10 to 15 feet, it renders scenes with high detail on the 5D. The focusing is slowish and geared for focusing by hand and eye,and even though the lens is totally new to me, I'm getting 4 out of 5 shots well-focused. I've shot the 200mm mostly at f/5.6 and at that f/stop it renders very good,sharp images on the 5D.

The third M42 thread mount lens is a Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Auto Macro made from the late 1970's to early 1980's. I did some on-line research and one fellow wrote that this Vivitar macro retailed for around $275 in the late 1970's,and was thus one of the more-costly third party lenses of the period. This lens extends a ridiculously long way, achieving full 1:1 image magnification with no need for a separate extension tube. It focuses from Infinity to 1:1 in about 690 degrees of travel,or ALMOST two full 360 degree turns of the focusing ring! The lens grows from 2.5 inches when focused at Infinity to just a hair over 4 and 7/8 inches in length when extended fully to its closest focus of 1:1 magnification.This Vivitar 55mm macro has a nice complete set of marked magnification ratios,engraved and filled with bright orange-painted markings and indexes with clearly legible settings of 1:1, 1:1.25, 1:1.5, 1:1.75, 1:2 or 1/2 life size, 1:1.25, 1:1.3, then 1:4, 1:5,1:7, 1:10, 1:20. At the closest macro-range magnification of 1:20, the lens is focused at a marked 4 feet, while at 1:10 the lens is focused at a little bit over two feet. At a foot and half, the magnification is approximately 1:7. This lens is difficult to focus accurately and repeatably at ranges of over about 10 feet on my EOS 5D. The focusing is very,very critical past 10 feet,and this is hair-trigger focusing outside the macro range is typical of most all macro lenses. At close ranges however, this lens focuses reasonably well in decent light,even when stopped down to f/5.6,as I am typically going to be doing with this lens.Bokeh is pretty good for a macro lens,especially foreground bokeh.

Post-PMA 2008: What Did We Learn?

2008-02-06T14:52:00.000-08:00

Well, Well, on January 23 Pentax was first out of the gate with their pre-PMA announcement of two new d-slr models. Pentax's announced K10D update, the K20D,will be a 14.6 MP APS-C sensored d-slr with body-integral anti shake and a price point aimed squarely at the Sony Alpha 700 and Canon 40D. I like the idea of a compact 200mm f/2.8 D* Pentax lens,also announced. Samsung will be making the sensor,and will have its own clone-like version of the K20D,but sold under the Samsung brand.

We also learned Nikon was rushing to iterate the D40x by calling its revision the D60, whose main claim to fame seems to be a new two-part anti-dust and self-cleaning sensor strategy that I think is an important selling point among a lot of consumers. Self-cleaning ovens were good,and sold millions of unneeded new ovens. Cameras with self-cleaning sesnors are what buyers of low-end bodies probably want. It's a feature battleground out there,and sometimes features simply must be added,and the D60 is a feature-update iteration of the D40x in my opinion.

But the BIGGEST thing we learned is that Sony has developed a new full-frame d-slr image sensor,packing oh, almost 25 megapixels worth of imaging capabilities. Oh,and how slow is it you ask? Well, Sony claims a respectable all-channel pixel write speed of 6.3 frames per second. Wow. That's pretty good,spec-wise. Sony says they plan to have this in production before the end of the year. As you will recall LAST year, in early 2007, Sony showed a mockup camera with a positively HUGE pentaprism,and this year too the large-prismed mockup was around. I smell a Sony A900 in the works sometime in the summer of 2008. Full-frame. Solid. Well-engineered. And capable of good image-making,especially when one considers the select top-quality lenses found in the Zeiss portion of the Sony lens system.

We saw no Canon 5D replacement announced. Nikon did not announce a full-frame,high megapixel companion to the 12 megapixel ISO champ, the D3, but many speculate that the Sony 24 MP chip will make its way into the Nikon D3x later this year. 2008 is an Olmpic year,and Nikon has used the Olympics as a tie-in with the introduction of numerous pieces of their cutting edge technology, going back to my favorite 400mm f/3.5 ED-IF, which was premiered at the 1976 Montreal Olympics.
A high-MP D3x body at this year's Olympics would make for a lot of nice buzz for Nikon.

We learned too that the hot-selling D40 and D40x cameras have gotten Sigma and Tamron into high gear,with both lens makers scrambling to retrofit ultrasonic motors to several very popular,wide-ratio consumer zoom lenses. Sales of D40 and D40x bodies are VERY,very high worldwide,due to the great little camera at the low,low price,and the packaging with an 18-55 kit lens.

What's RIGHT with the Canon EOS 5D?

2008-01-24T18:39:00.000-08:00

A few months back I wrote my second experience report after having shot the Canon EOS 5D for a few months. That blog article was entitled "What's Wrong With The EOS 5D". I pointed out the various weaknesses of the camera. But in all fairness, I think it's only fair to take a look at what's "right" with the EOS 5D. Let me right off the bat, summarize what the EOS 5D has gotten "right". Size. It's almost the same size and proportions as the Nikon D70, but with a grip that's a little bit clubbier-feeling than the D70's grip. Simply stated,the 5D is compact, and *if* one wants or needs a bigger camera, then the accessory grip can be added. Picture quality is excellent at the lowest ISO's of 100 to 400. At 800 and 1600 the image quality is very good. At Hi-1, the image quality is pretty good. And, to boot, the ISO ratings are very,very conservative. Put it this way, the 5D shoots a bit "hot" to my taste, and dialing in negative EV compensation is no problem whatsoever with the 5D. And finally, with the 580 EX-II flash unit, the 5D can shoot beautiful, rich flash shots at up to ISO 640 indoors. The 580 EX-II is a well-designed speedlight. For documentary-style bounced flash pictures, there's no need to shy away from using the 5D at 500 or 640 or even ISO 800 with flash to cut down on flash power needs and to fill-in shadows.

The 5D's sensor performance is pretty good in relation to overexposure. The ability to recover "lost" highlights, or just "kinda' hot highlights" from the CR2 raw files is an area where the 5D really beats the D2x. Actually, the look can be quite, quite good with the 5D on generously-exposed images, where D2x files' highlight tones would be hopelessly unrecoverable. To me, the workability, the malleability, of the 5D's raw CR2 files is one of the absolute strengths of the 5D camera. The 5D gives you a BETTER RAW file to start with than the D2x does, in many conditions, at many light levels, at more ISO settings,and across a broader range of over- or under-exposures. Especially over-exposure. Again, as I wrote the other day, if the D2x had the sensor capabilities of the EOS 5D, there wouldn't be a damned thing wrong to complain about in the D2x. As Evan Effa wrote in a comment to me on my pBase site, the 5D's sensor is the one Nikon ought to have put into the D2x two years ago. How true.

Overall, the 5D offers an excellent value proposition to my way of thinking. Full frame digital SLR's have tended to be priced at $4500 to $8000, from Kodak and Canon. Nikon's first full frame d-slr,the D3, is selling as fast as Nikon can make and ship them, and they cost $5,000.The Canon EOS 5D began its life on the market in the mid-$3000 range, but has for the past 18 months or so, been available at a little over $2,000 to $2199,depending on Canon rebates/printer bundles/e-Bay ridding one's self of said printer,etc,etc. Canon's body and lens rebate programs and special promotions have at various times, allowed many Canon 5D buyers to get their 12.8 MP full frame image sensor camera for a little over two grand. That's a good value, I think.

The 5D is compact,portable,and comfortable to use. The body itself is smallish but not small, and it uses an accessory grip with dual battery capability and an added set of controls for vertical format shooting if you need that added grip,or the added battery capacity. While some prefer the large size of the 1-series Canons and the D1-D2-D3 Nikons, there is something to be said for a camera that allows half-height use and carry AND which can accept an add-on dual battery pack-control wheel-handgrip accessory. The mono-body construction of the 1-series and the pro-series Nikons gives them increased weather resistance, but it drives up the size and weight tremendously, and always saddles you with that Big Brick camera, even if all you want to carry is a light-tight box fitted with a 10-ounce 35mm f/2 or a featherweight 50mm lens. The 5D has the body size, and weight, and versatility advantages of a half-height camera, combined with a BIG VIEWFINDER image.

While the 5D's finder does allow a lot of dust inside, the camera offers a BIG VIEWFINDER. The image you see through the viewfinder is LARGE. And easy to SEE. It's got a nicely-padded eyepiece that does not scratch your eyeglasses. The viewfinder is transparent. It just works. There's absolutely no tunnel vision feeling and no cropped-down viewfinder effect. The view through the 5D's finder is excellent. It's easy to frame and compose and to actually SEE what you're getting, as you look through the camera in actual use.

With the 5D, you can shoot at ISO 400,and ISO 500,and ISO 640 and get images which do not suffer from obvious image quality compromises, such as the D2x suffers from at those three ISO values. With the 5D, ISO 800 can be used without the clear, significant, and very real IQ hit that the D2x takes at ISO 800. The 5D is good when you need to shoot without flash, and WITH flash added for shadow fill-in indoors, the 5D is a very capable camera. Under studio electronic flash with umbrella or softbox lighting, the 5D and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens offers beautiful quality images, especially at lower ISO settings like 100 to 200. The degree of fine detail the 5D can reveal under studio lighting is stunning.

The 5D adapts extremely well to Nikon manual focus and autofocus lenses. The 5D allows Manual match-LED metering with Nikon lenses, and also allows aperture-priority automatic shutter speed setting with Nikon lenses. Pretty impressive. With top-quality Nikon optics, the 5D does pretty good light metering, and makes pretty good images; the better the lens, the better the image quality. The Nikon autofocus 85/1.4 and 105/2 Defocus Control lenses perform very,very well on the 5D,as does the 300 f/4 AF-S. Telephoto lenses focus the easiest by hand and eye, and all of the mentioned lenses perform quite well as manual focusers in their optimum aperture ranges. Canon's 85mm f/1.8 EF lens is a very NICE imager for very little money. Canon's 135mm f/2 L is a very good telephoto lens. The 5D's sensor makes great images with both Canon autofocus lenses, and with many, but not "all" Nikon lenses, using F-to EF mount lens adapter rings that cost me $17.99 each in a 10-pack carton from a USA eBay importer.

The 5D's small size, reasonable weight, big viewfinder, half-height body form factor, well-designed 580 EX-II flash unit accessory, excellent adaptability to Nikon lenses, and its excellent, large sensor with its wide useful ISO range all combine to make the 5D a very,very good value at the $2199 price point it's at right now, in late January of 2008.

[Addendum March 4,2008: The EOS 5D also works very well with Pentax thread mount lenses, yielding full infinity focusing with my Asahai Optical Co. 135mm f/3.5 and 200mm f/4 Super-Takumar lenses ,as well as the nifty 1970's-early 80's era Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Auto Macro in thread mount.

Evaluating D-SLR Features Camera by Camera

2008-01-20T15:16:00.000-08:00

So, I was thinking, what matters in a d-slr? It's gotten to the point that the limitations of earlier generations of cameras have largely been overcome. The earliest d-slr's might have had SINGLE-area AF (like the Fuji S1 Pro had),instead of five-area,or nine-area, or 11 area, or 45-point ,or 51-point AF systems,as various Fuji,Canon,and Nikon bodies now have. Auto-exposure and shutter and aperture control mechanisms now offer 1/3 stop precision on all bodies (with user-settable 1/2 stop capability on many bodies),and exposure systems have become pretty good, although not infallible by any means. As one marketer said of household and consumer goods, "It all works now. The cleaners all clean, the shampoos all clean your hair well, you know, it all just works. Nowadays the difference is in the marketing message,more than the products themselves." I think to a great extent, that's the current state of things in the d-slr market.

The way I view things, Newer is Better. Usually. At least if it's got to do with flash units or camera sensors. Onboard or pop-up flashes now,like laundry soaps, just work. Newer pop-up flash units deliver better exposures,under a wider range of distances than older pop-up flashes did. Nikon's D40 does pretty well with its pop-up flash; the D40 gives much better exposures on the whole than the D70's pop-up flash did,based on my own experience. Canon's Xti does pretty well too. Selling millions of cameras involves making one that has a GOOD pop-up flash. Nikon's D40 is the best selling consumer d-slr for a good reason. The flash works great. The D40's onboard pop-up flash can do some amazingly subtle balancing with ambient light.

The EOS 40D versus EOS 5D versus EOS 20D comparison photos I have seen show that the new $1,300 40D does ALMOST as well as the older 5D,even though the 40D has a 1.6x APS-C sensor,and the 5D has a no-crop or full-frame sensor. See above: Newer is Better, when it comes to sensors. The Nikon D300's 1.5x APS-C or Nikon DX sensor shoots faster and with higher resolution than the Nikon D2x pro camera from 2005,and as far as I am concerned, that means that if you had wanted the D2x's imaging capabilities, the new D300 at $1899 represents a very,very good buy. The D2x's sensor was ISO-challenged,and operated best under a fairly narrow range of ISO settings,and lost color very,very badly at the extremes of its ISO range,and demanded rigorous post processing to achieve the kind of results that more versatile sensors can do without post work. But the D300's sensor is newer,and better,across a wider range of ISO settings than the D2x's sensor. Bottom line--the serious enthusiast/semi-pro camera segment has finally seen a SIGNIFICANT INCREASE in imaging potential and imaging quality that makes users of older-generation 6- and 8-MP models probably realize that _this generation_ of cameras is really worth having,and offers great value for many types of shooting. Buffer depths are now very good, frame rates are now as high or HIGHER than "pro" cameras before,and in the case of the D300, Nikon is installing the identical flagship-level focusing system in both the D3 and the D300. Hooray!

Currently, in the 1.5 and 1.6x 10.1 to 12.2 MP semi-pro serious enthusiast camera class, Nikon,Sony,and Canon all have very nice cameras. The Sony A700 has in-body stabilization and is $1,400 body only. The Canon 40D costs the same. The Nikon D300 is more, at $1899 MSRP,but is arguably a "better body"" than either the Sony or Canon offerings.

So,what matters in this class of camera? Features and suitability for your shooting style,mainly. The Sony A700 and Nikon D300 both offer high definition HDMI-out which will allow them to play images directly on high-definition TV's and the reports I've read of the Sony's output are of excellent image quality on High-Def Sony TV's. If you wish to project your work onto a large,high-definition TV set, the Nikon D300 and Sony Alpha 700 are the only game in town. Features,you say? Canon's direct print button is a feature I don't give a rat's ass about. The Nikon and Sony have the newest,state-of-the-art LCD screens,with vastly superior image review quality over other cameras. This is a big advancement,technologically, but not absolutely a critical feature--just a new technological milestone. The new 920,000-spec screens blow away all the older ones.

Some people ares still enthusiastic about the FujiFilm S5 Pro as a serious enthusiast/semi-pro body,and I can understand why. I'm currently waiting on PMA 2008 to see if Fuji announces an S5 Pro follow-up (I doubt they will,unfortunately) because I think I'd like an F-mount 6MP d-slr that can be optimized several ways for OOC JPEG shooting,and also because I think the way the S5 handles tonality and skin tone is pretty nice. The sensor's not the best,not the highest-resolving,and does not produce the type of artifact-free,high-resolution images the 5D does, but I think the Fuji has richer tonality,and more color variation,more nuance, than other cameras can output in JPEG capture mode,and I kind of LIKE the way the S5 can put an impression on its pictures with its decided Fuji color tendencies. This is a camera more about tonality and color and nuance and "feel",and less of a cold,crisp,faithful camera like the 5D. Fuji S5 Pro images often have a decided "look" that I do not see from Canon or Nikon digital images,and I can understand why somebody who has a family or child to photograph, or who likes to do portraits and people and pet pictures and general day-trip type shooting would absolutely LOVE shooting with an S5 Pro. It's not a camera for pixel-peepers, and it does have its share of small artifacting problems,especially when shot in 12 MP mode, but the "look" and the "feel" of the S5 Pro's images both make this camera viable in its class. The S5 Pro uses pretty heavy Noise Reduction at elevated ISO's,but then it's designed that way,and the pictures look acceptable without a lot of post work,so...

What has me conflicted is the D40 versus S5 Pro conundrum....I could buy three D40 kits for the price of one S5 Pro body. And the D40's a pretty good little imager, and very small and light. Both are really GOOD 6 megapixel cameras,offering roughly 3,000 pixel wide images that have pretty good file size economy in JPEG mode. The D40 is an excellent RAW camera, but offers only a very tiny, BASIC size jpeg capture (704 k. apprx.) in its RAW+JPEG mode.The S5 Pro shoots big raws;no let's call the raw's from the S5 what they are:huge,inflated 25 megabyte RAWs when in Wide-DR RAW mode and 13 Megabyte raws in Normal DR RAW mode,and it writes raw files rather slowly,and so all together the S5 Pro would probably be considered a poor raw camera by some people. Both the Nikon D40 and the Fuji S5 Pro do a good job of controlling image noise,and both allow good High ISO captures to be made. I'd like to own both cameras, but cannot justify buying both. Maybe I'll just continue to borrow my wife's D40 until she actually demands that I buy my own; she has already suggested,directly, that I might like to buy my own D40,since I like shooting hers so much. The D40 offers good in-camera image processing, and excellent file size economy in a small,light,affordable camera. The S5 Pro uses more storage space than a conventionally sensored camera,and its files can actually be seen as bloated for its resolution class, and yet the images one can obtain are prettier and more,well,Fuji-good than one gets with other systems,so what's the use worrying about a few gigs more in hard drive and DVD storage per week?

One of the things that I've found is that once I get used to a particular camera's control layout and the shutter's exact timing, I can shoot the best with that camera. Period. The one area where the Nikon D2x has been the absolute best camera I've ever used has been in its incredible speed,with the shortest shutter lag,fastest mirror return time,and all that stuff. The simply incredibly SHORT time between pressing the shutter and making and exposure makes the D2x seem to me a camera that is as quick as my thought processes. It's a camera you do not have to wait for. At all. I keep image review turned off with the D2x, to make it the absolutely fastest it can be,since turning off the image review reduces the D2x's shutter lag time. For shooting sports assignments where timing has been critical, I've always felt that the D2x's title as world's quickest camera was a big advantage in getting my timing down. On events like pole vault and high jumping, there's really only ONE best moment,and the lag time difference between a D70 and a D2x is truly significant in terms of keeper rate. The pro-class cameras offer much shorter lag time,and when timing is critical, the less time the camera takes to make the exposure, the more time you've got to sit there and be a slow,human being,with human-like reflexes. With the D70, on a field goal or place kick,you must begin the press of the shutter as the kicker's leg moves forward--you have to allow a rather lengthy period of pre-firing to get the kick contact; with the D2x, you can wait much,much longer until you need to press the button to actually GET the image. In my estimation, one of the biggest advantages the Nikon pro-d-slrs have always brought to the table is their extremely short shutter release lag times compared with consumer models. The pro-class cameras also shoot more frames more quickly, which can turn some things from one-frame opportunities to two-frame opportunities.

Seeing Through The Viewfinder Matters! To some people! This is one area where the full frame cameras,both digital and 35mm film SLR bodies, have a big advantage. Eyeglass wearers often benefit from longer eye relief specifications of full frame cameras,which have viewfinder systems that have with slightly lower magnification factors than those of crop-cameras. Nikon's F3 HP camera, with its High Eyepoint prism,was a huge success for millions of eyeglass wearing camera buffs. Seriously, it allowed better composing by giving photographers a better VIEW through the viewfinder compared to earlier cameras and compared to its contemporary competing models. Earlier-generation d-slr's often had tunnel vision finders. Squinty,cropped-down finders that made composing in poor light or following fast action more difficult than it ought to be. The newer-generation cameras, even small-bodied and ultra comapct ones like the Nikon D40 have MUCH better viewfinder systems than many prior d-slr cameras had. I find the larger capture cameras that shoot to 24x36mm, have more useful information that I can see easier,and better, than on APS-C cameras. Finder quality varies widely. The better the viewfinder, the easier it is to shoot in challenging light with that camera. Under good light, almost anything modern is workable; at twilight, the best viewfinders offer you a decided advantage.

Flash Matters in a D-SLR. At least, if you shoot flash pictures. I dunno....I'm impressed with how well the SB 600 works on the D40. I'm impressed with how well the 580 EX-II works on the 20D and the 5D. I was not that impressed with the SB 800 on the D2x--the D40 is a better flash camera,in many respects. But overall, I think the modern serious enthusiast camera class is where the benefits of high-end flashes (costing $399 to $459 or so) has become a marketing ground for claim after claim,without a lot of real user input into the engineering or even the feature sets the makers are coming up with. Wireless remote control and slave/commander flash technology has made Nikon's flash marketing the best flash marketing. Canon's E-TTL II might be where Canon finally figured out how to do TTL flash more or less right. For use with a single,on-camera or bracket-mounted speedlight, all the makers have you covered. Nikon has more-capable wireless remote flash technology than any other maker, and Canon is surprisingly NOT in second-place in wireless flash technology,but is the laggard. Not that that's all that bad, since I don't think wireless flash command capability from the body is all that needed in most situations,and I think Canon feels the same way. But,electronics being what they are, Nikon is the clear leader in wireless flash tech. But, on a one body-one flash basis, the 5D + 580 EX-II flash unit gives superb results,and the D40 + SB 600 gives good results;bottom line, in this newest generation of cameras and flashes, I think the top flash unit from every mfr will give acceptable results at least 90% of the time when used correctly. Exceeding distance limitations and flash units confounded by misguided camera setting don't count.

What matters in a d-slr varies greatly from user to user. I'm very,very impressed with the Nikon D40 in the ultra-small d-slr category,and when the SB 600 is added, it does pretty good flash work. It does surprisingly well with its pop-up flash too. The D40 has the somewhat intense,punched-up color look Nikon premiered with the D50,and for good measure, it allows flash sync to 1/500 second,and has in-camera image editing and filter effects. The Nikon D300 looks like the most feature-rich d-slr the semi-pro segment has ever seen.

Canon's EOS 40D at $1,300 and 10.1 MP looks like the latest new Canon in the 10D-20D-30D series family body,but with a really significant increase in image quality at HIGH ISO being the main area Canon has improved over the 20D and 30D models that came before. From what I have seen so far, the 40D looks like a very,very solid imager right up to ISO 1600. I know among a certain set of feature snob type hobbyist shooters, the 40D is kind of looked down upon compared with Nikon's new D300,with the Canon being perceived by these folks as "trailing" on body features and trailing in megapixel count too. But, the price difference is $500,and I think the 40D and D300 really are not competing for the same dollars. What I see in this current marketplace is Canon beginning to feel the effects of Nikon's increasing feature-packing of its cameras. The D200 and D300 certainly have a LOT more high-end features than the 20D-30D-40D EOS models that Canon has had and in this higher-end amateur segment of the market,Nikon's attracting tremendous reviews for its excellent work in R&D and camera deign too. The inclusion of the professional Nikon's focusing system in the lower cost D300 is an example; Canon's 40D has added some more cross-type sensors apparently, but I still find Canon's diamond-shaped array too tightly centrally-biased,and do not like the diamond-shaped array which leaves the left and right margins,and the top and bottom,represented too "thinly" as it were.

What surprises me the most is that Canon has not figured out how to implement an Auto ISO feature that works like the ones Nikon has had now for several years. Canon is clearly,clearly behind on the Auto ISO feature,which is something many hobbyist (and many serious shooters) can put to good use. On this one feature, Auto ISO,Canon lags behind Nikon QUITE badly. Of course,Canon has that awesome Direct Print button that three people in Illinois asked for, so...let's give props to Canon.

Nikon's broader,much higher AF point count of 51 AF points in the D300 makes me think that Canon's prosumer/semi-pro models are suffering right now from sort of a feature disadvantage on AF. At least on paper. However, from actual,practical experience, I just do NOT like Canon's diamond-shaped array in either the 20D or 5D; it's too-centrally weighted in the 5D.
Speaking of which, Nikon's new 51 Point System looks to ME to be a bit more-center weighted than the D2x's AF layout with its fewer, 11 AF points and broader grouping of AF zones. The Canon and Nikon families have become more similar now; in both brands, the same basic AF point pattern is shared,and in the 20D-30D-40D models, the diamond-shaped 9-point array covers a wider percentage of the frame than it does on the larger-framed 5D. The same hold true on the D3 and D300 Nikon's with the 51-point AF rectangle now more dispersed toward the center parts of the frame, with a less-broad area where AF brackets are located. To me, the D3's 51-point AF system looks,well, too-centrally weighted for my taste. There's been a reduction by one in the number of AF mode selections between the D2x and the D3,and that's causing me a little bit of angst. Not to mention that the D3 has the exposure meter info on the RIGHT hand SIDE of the viewscreen! Where that brain fart of an idea came from,I'm not sure. Moving the exposure info there is not to my liking,and is just inscrutable. A true "what the fuck were they thinking" kind of mental lapse from NIkon. The sides of virtually every viewfinder offer LESS visibility than the top or bottom. Nikon really screwed the pooch on the move to the right hand side of the finder for the D3 exposure info,and a VERTICAL display of the information to boot. It's not only a locational switch, but a psychological representational change of aperture ring direction and camera control representation in dial direction and display. The switch to a VERTICAL representation of exposure does not jibe with the old Nikon ethos which was basically set by the N8008. But then again, why should the direction the display moves,and the control wheels move,mimic the direction the lens's aperture ring moves when there is no longer an aperture ring on the newest G-series Nikons?

In some very interesting operational ways,like the wholesale adoption of this fucked-up G-series Nikon lens mount and the switch to centrally-located,high-point count AF systems,Nikon and Canon seem closer than ever before. With the development of E-TTL II flash and the newest EX flash units, Canon finally seems to be able to provide pretty good flash performance. With Nikon dropping the concept of aperture rings on its lenses,and getting more AF-S focusing zooms on the market, Nikon has made its lenses and cameras handle more like Canon equipment,with all aperture control being inputted on the body,and with even things like "macro" lenses losing their aperture ring (Nikon's new 105mm f/2.8 AFS VR-G Nikkor for example), Nikon is throwing away a lot of the backward compatibility and off-list use that made their original F mount lenses so versatile. The G-series is harmful to the macro lens category,and it diminishes the off-list value of many exotic lenses by limiting their use only to NIKON-made bodies,of today's current specification.

What matters in a d-slr is that it fits the need you have for it to fulfill. Right now, almost all of the choices look reasonably good to even excellent. The bargain-priced Nikon,Pentax,and Canon bodies are quite impressive. Pentax's practically giving away the farm to get people to buy its product,and is working very hard on new,exotic yet affordable lens designs that leverage their 6MP-10MP APS-C bodies.Sony's offering a lot of features and great design,plus some seriously good Zeiss lens offerings. Nikon is packing more and more and more features and goodness into each camera design. Canon's moving smoothly upward in MP count and offering good values at several price points, while adding a few high-end optics and some nice consumer and serious enthusiast lenses every 18 months or so. So, whatever matters to you in a d-slr, you can find it today.If you get the chance to go to one of the really large camera stores,you really,really owe it to yourself to look at what a fine state of affairs we're in right now!

Planning Out Gear Purchases For The Next Two Years?

2008-01-16T21:04:00.000-08:00

Are you perhaps planning your gear purchases for the next two years? Well,maybe you should wait until PMA 2008 is over. By then, the first week of February 2008, you'll know what the major photo industry players are gonna be up to for the next year or so. Product development cycles between Canon and Nikon can vary between synchronized and discordant. Who is "on top" in the market is of little concern,except to amateurs and hobbyists and the prosumers,who can/want to/like to/feel compelled to own the latest and greatest photo equipment. However,new cameras with much better imaging potential have been released by all the major players within the past six months or so,and so...many people will feel a need to get new stuff!

Since the advent of the internet and the explosion of digital photography web sites and forums the number of pretty serious,devoted system-switchers has grown to a fairly sizable number. When one camera maker's products seem to demonstrate better performance, there are quite a number of small time studios and part time pros and serious hobbyists who will move with decisiveness to "a new system" of body,lens or two or three, and flash system,and will use that system only until something X times better debuts,and then it's time for another switch--often only a switch in camera body, but at times, a switch to an entirely different camera brand. Well--if you're interested in updating, 2008 might be a very,very interesting year; for some people,2008 might be a good year to SWITCH to an entirely new system.

Phil Askey predicts that 2008 might see as many as 25 d-slr's introduced. Yes, he wrote that just a few days ago in a pre-PMA piece. Personally, I cannot imagine that that many d-slr's could even theoretically be announced in 2008. I really do not see that much excess production/market fragmentation in the next 11 months. I just do NOT think it possible that any more than eight d-slrs will be introduced in 2008. I think we've already GOT what we're gonna get,all year long, from Nikon, with the D300 and the D3. I do not forsee another Nikon pro or semi-pro body hitting store shelves until Q-1 2009. I hope that I am wrong about that,but I suspect that the pro-semi-pro bodies will be two from Nikon for all of 2008. I do expect that another one, or maybe even two lower-priced d-slrs "could be" announced by Nikon this year. But what has happened now is that,finally,Nikon is offering people some really serious,viable competition to Canon products,in several categories. Over the past few years, the state of technology has changed and shifted considerably,and we're now on the cusp of a new era in d-slr photography. 2008 could be a good year for people to switch to Nikon's d-slr and lens line,with its impressive flash system.

I do not see Olympus doing anything else this year,or in 2009: they have just announced the E3, their follow-up the underwhelming E1.That's where Olympus will be in 2008 and 2009. Not many people care about Oly any more,and the E1's dreadfully poor AF system saw to that;the one credible review I've read of the E3 faults the camera for its ergonomic and field operational problems that result due to the clunky,ill-conceived body controls. Sony's gonna go with what it has already on hand I think all the way until 2009,and will concentrate on more Zeiss-branded lenses and lens design panache and on improving its advertising and distribution.The higher-end Sony branded zooms are solid performers and are significantly better optics than their low-level lenses are. I've handled the new Sony Apha 700, their 12.2 MP camera that uses the D300 imager made by Sony, and the Apha 700 feels great in the hands, has nice controls,and really has a fine human/machine interface. I LIKED the Apha 700,quite a bit. The Alpha system is adequate,and has a very nice "analog control" ethos that is missing from all but the very highest-end Nikons. In terms of a nice feel,heft,and design touches, the Alpha 700 is a winner,and would make a nice serious enthusiast's camera.

Pentax is doing okay,and is gaining a lot of entry-level buyers by offering value and by being handled in big-box stores like Wal-Mart and chain camera stores like Ritz/Wolf/Kits/et all. Pentax has a nifty history as a camera company,and has some boutique lenses and their legendary decades-long lens compatibility on their d-slrs (like Nikon,only more-adaptable to legacy lenses than Nikon) and there is a place for the Pentax brand in the camera world, but I just see them struggling in the US market. I do not think they can compete well against Sony,and I predict that Pentax's market share over the next two years will stagnate or decline slowly.while Sony's market share climbs slowly.If you bother to pick up and handle and trial the Sony d-slr's,you'll see why I think they'll do well. And also, the name Sony has some clout among many consumers. It's a brand that's been built for years,and my experiences with Sony products have been very good ones generally,over two decades.

Canon will almost surely announce an EOS 5D iteration or replacement at PMA 2008. The new 40D's 10.1 MP imager yields images that are rich in information and with good color and nice tonality,in an affordable,fast,large LCD,half-height,proven Canon 1.6x semi-pro mold of the 10D-20D-30D evolution. The 40D's images look very,very close to the quality of those produced by the 5D's full-frame CMOS imager and image processor,and this 40D-EOS 5D image quality near-parity holds right up to ISO 800. Seriously, the 40D in side-by-side shooting is performing almost as well as the 5D. And so,I think Canon will soon be making an updated 5D-type camera,with a better imaging potential and higher ISO settings. THIS AREA, the prosumer FF market is a market segment where Nikon really does not have a competing product, and this market segment, that owned by the 5D for the past two and a half years, is where image quality,usability,and versatility all come together to make the 5D one of the best camera values we've yet seen in the d-slr arena. This segment, the 5D segment, is where most people are waiting on Canon's announcement at PMA 2008,to provide them with some clarity in terms of future product.

Let's just suppose that Canon's 5D-Mark II will start at 200 ISO and not 100,and work Up to a Hi-1 of 6400, with a calibrated, Canon-good range of real ISO's of 200 to 400 to 800 to 1600 and to 3200 all in 1/3 stop progression as real,tested ISO settings, and then with a Hi-1 setting of 6400. Is it possible that Canon merely moves the 5D's successor toward better images at higher ISO settings as a way to exploit the potential of both slower lenses and also keep its sales appeal to so many types of shooters? What if Canon can get to the 12000 to 25,000 ISO levels that the Nikon D3 can shoot at very easily?

Nikon's new Expeed processor seems to be capable of processing large amounts of data,and there's some reason to believe that the Expeed processor itself is reducing chromatic aberration that the processor "sees" or "finds" during the processing of images. Wow! That's great,because there are a number of very fine Nikkor telephotos and wide angles and zooms that have CA problems which a small amount of processing power can cancel out,and if Nikon's newest generation of processor can help reduce the small residual CA that so many lenses have, it'll be a great thing. With modern lenses, their CA profiles are fairly well-known,and the CPU in the lens tells the processor what lens images the picture. Nifty,this communication between lens and processor. Bjorn Rorslett's Nikon Forum writings seem to suggest that MANY of the CA problems that older lenses showed on the D2x are now eliminated or very greatly reduced; to me, that's a good thing. The D2x's high-density sensor, with 12.2 MP on a DX sized sensor,places very,very high requirements on the lens on the camera. You will note that currently, about 12 MP is all ANY maker has on a crop-sensored camera. At this stage of d-slr development, that's about the theoretical top end for good performance. Moving to a FF or FX format sensor size, like the EOS 5D and now the Nikon D3 use, makes the pixels larger,boosts Higher ISO performance by keeping noise at bay,and is also less-demanding on the lens's absolute optical performance. Simply put, the FF or FX sensor size makes everything a little bit less critical. The larger capture area means that a number of areas are a bit less strained,and a bigger sensor delivers a bigger,better image than a smaller sensor does,all things being equal.

Used D2x bodies are now in the $1900 range. Not a bad deal,really,if the D2x will suit your requirements. As a crop-sensored camera for low-ISO work,with top-shelf lenses only, the D2x is hard to beat,image quality wise. For controlled lighting,like with studio lights, the D2x has an excellent focusing system for indoor use under modeling lamps,and it has ultra-high resolution--with excellent lenses. Used D2x's will be valuable for lower ISO work and are a very good deal at $1900 IMHO. I personally think the D2x is/was optimized for use under controlled lighting conditions more than field use for such things as sports or photojournalism. The D2x is a good sports camera as long as the lighting levels are GOOD or you are using strobes for supplementary lighting; it really is outclassed by the better sports/PJ cameras when there's a need for ISO speed to get shutter speeds adequate to ensure good photos. let's face it: the D2x is very ISO-limited. Period. But under good light levels, the results at ISOs like 100-160-200 are staggering. Crisp,clear images that are as good as the LENS you happen to have. With the absolutely best Nikkors, the D2x can deliver very,very good images. With good light. And as long as the exposure is right. And you are willing to expose to preserve highlights and then post-process the NEFs. That's the D2x. Unforgiving and demanding,but very rewarding if everything is just right.

The D2x is defended by many people. As long as you can make your pictures at low ISO settings, it's quite good. But it has a narrow dynamic range, and it does tend to blow highlights quite easily,and it's a very *demanding* camera,and its range of ISO settings is narrow; the range is from 100 to 800; anything above 800 is a Hi-setting and is not necessarily up to ISO standard. But please note, the official range is a mere 100-800. You know, if the D2x had the 5D's sensor in it, there wouldn't be a thing to complain about about the D2x. I'm serious. The D2x's sensor really tops out at about ISO 250 or 320. Above that and the image quality performance of the D2x is easy to equal or to beat using many "lesser" cameras. I want to repeat: if the D2x body had a sensor that was as good as the one in the Canon 5D, there would not be a damned thing to complain about. And that my friends, is what makes the D3 such an appealing camera; its a pro Nikon body with a full frame sensor,like the Canon 5D has inside its serious amateur body.

The Nikon D3 is currently $5,000,just like the D2x was in early 2005. If you buy one, expect that its replacement will not be here for another two years. Or maybe a little bit over two years. If you're waiting for an ultra-high resolution Nikon,like an 18-21 MP model, I think you'll be able to buy one in Q4 2008,and if not by then by Q1 2009. Nikon's gonna move to a high-density,high MP FF (aka FX-format) sensor camera as soon as it can,feasibly. And that's why they've built the awesome new lenses 14-24,24-70,200 f/2 VR, 300 VR,105 VR, and the superb 70-200mmm f/2.8 VR and the super-duper 200-400mm f/4 VR zoom, and the new VR-equipped line of 200mm f/2,300mm /f2.8, 400mm f/2.8 and 500mm and 600mm f/4 superteles; Nikon's already designed and built an entire line of new,high-definition,high-performance lenses for its upcoming high-density sensored d-slr models. Nikon has gotten the lenses into place over the last several years; their newest pro-class lenses are all exceptionally good performers,designed for a new generation of cameras soon to come. If you want a D3, buy it and use it,'cause it'll be state of the art in High-ISO pro Nikon for two more years. And I can assure you, the D3 is a very,very exciting camera that has High-ISO capabilities that absolutely WILL make it EASIER to get better sports and PJ and wedding images,under lighting conditions that were previously only the province of electronic flash. The 25,600 ISO setting looks pretty darned good converted to monochrome,and will allow low-light shots that were previously IMPOSSIBLE to get with f/2.8 teles like the 70-200 f/2.8. Sports coverage like nightime football and soccer under the lights...wow....strobes will be able to be reduced in power,speeding up recycling rates and extending battery life....the new ISO cushion will allow you an extra stop or even two stops smaller to provide a focus safety cushion. If you wanna shoot low-light, the D3 really looks to be worth $5k.

Nikon's more-modest lenses could use a refresh; their high-end zooms are great,and their superteles are great,but the rank and file Nikkor lenses in the prime focal lengths are rather long in the tooth. The announcement of a VR-equipped 85mm 1.4 during 2008 might just spark a sell-off of a lot of AF-D 85 1.4's,and the sell-to-raise-cash-for-D3 syndrome will swell inventories of used and consignment gear throughout 2008,so be on the lookout for good deals on used Nikon glass this upcoming next 12 to 18 months. The D3 costs a LOT of cash,and much gear will be traded away to raise money for D3's,since they are so desirable. I expect that Nikon will address the 85mm lens rather soon,and I PRAY they add some speed to the wide-angle domain. Nikon is seriously deficient at high-speed wide-angles. They have NOTHING. Right now, Nikon's best lens offerings are probably their 14-24mm which is likely the best wide angle lens made at 14 and 16 and 18 and 20 and 24mm; it's an amazingly sharp lens and it's very wide and it has some real *range* across the wide angles of view. A lens that delivers sharp,well-corrected images to a full frame imager from 14mm to 24mm at f/2.8 is simply unprecedented. Wow. The lens testing people at 16.9 are simply agog at how good the 14-24 Nikkor is. It's a worldbeater. It's a crowning achievement in lens design and manufacture.

Meanwhile,Canon has completed its update of the prime line L-glass with their new 50mm f/1.2 and their 85 1.2 iteration. Both are very costly full-field lenses. Add in their 24/1.4 L and 35/1.4 L and Canon seems to hold the edge for ultra-high speed lenses for available light and shallow depth of field/selective focus effects from wide to short telephoto. I've seen some wedding work done using these ultra-speed lenses,and the dreamy, color wash backdrops the 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2 are able to make are very beautiful. To be fair, I've also seen excellent shallow DOF and selective focus work done with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4,Nikon 85mm 1.4,Nikon 105 DC, Canon 135/2 L,and the Nikkor 200mm f/2 VR. What has happened is over the years, as ISO speeds have gone up and slower zoom lenses have hit the market, and now we see LOTS of event photography shot at small apertures,and very little shot at wide apertures. Most people will stop their f/2.8 lens down a stop or two to get better image quality, a bit more DOF, and just easier,surer image-making. But the real shallow DOF and selective focus photography is done at apertures usually wider than f/2.8. The cheapest route to shallow DOF/selective focus is in the 85-100-105mm focal length range,from both Nikon and Canon,with the 85mm f/1.8 lenses from either maker being just under $400,and offering a tremendous image making potential in the short tele range. Canon's 100mm f/2 is also a nice social photography lens that offers good shallow DOF/selective focus images. Dirk Vermierre uses the inexpensive Canon 100mm f/2 to good effect,and he's also used Nikon's 105mm f/2 DC lens quite a bit with equally good results.

If I were to think about a lens lineup for the next two whole years, it would be muchly determined by what format I was going to shoot: DX or FF,and the lens choices would be quite different. What I see for 2008-2010 is the era of very high quality zoom lenses and of Nikon updating its big teles to VR, and people upgrading from non-VR 300's,400's and 500's to VR models,and of Nikon's new lineup being 14-24, 24-70,70-200VR,and then adding VR to some of the oldest prime short tele designs like 85-105-135-180. Canon's expensive wide-aperture prime lineup of 24-35-50-85 L-series lenses is where I expect Nikon to get to by 2010. If you want ultra-speed primes from 24 to 85mm,now, Canon is the only choice. If you want some of the BEST lenses, Nikon's still edging Canon out in the 17-35 category,and also the 14-24 wide zoom Nikon has is untouchable by any Canon lens. Nikon's 200 f/2 VR is unmatched by any current Canon lens,and is an optical secret weapon.
Nikon has solidified its lens offerings reasonably well over the last year, and I think will continue to bolster the lens line over the next two years--while I do NOT THINK that Canon has devoted the same resources to lenses. I think Canon's lens line is not going to fill-in or be updated to the same extent Nikon's line is. Nikon is in the middle of the supertele VR completion,and is spreading VR to its low-end stuff almost as fast as it can. I don't think Canon's prepared to do that right now,and besides,their lens lineup is solid,for the most part, and reasonably vast.

The biggest two-year planning I think involves whether you're going to switch platforms,and what lens choices you're going to make. Lenses outlast bodies by a wide,wide margin. Lenses last for decades,but bodies come and go. And while lenses might seem expensive,often costing $800-$1800 for some of the better ones, over a decade that's not that much per month. Given the increasing quality lenses are demonstrating these days,it's worth the time to investigate what some of the new lenses can do. What sucks to me is having to pay $5,000 to Nikon for the pleasure of using their best camera. They've been pulling that shit for four generations of digital flagships. That sucks. But the advantages of full frame digital are so many that it's come down to 2008 and Nikon's charging $5k for a full frame camera. And pretty soon Canon's 5D's successor model will be announced and you'll probably be able to buy a slightly discounted 5D at a store or two. What to do? Based on the past, Nikon's not going to update the D3 to a high-rez camera for almost a year and a half. I do NOT think that Nikon will introduce a serious-enthusiast type FX body,like the 5D with a simple feature set,within 18 months. I'm afraid that Nikon's not going to be able to make its "5D" until 2010. Gosh, I hope I'm totally wrong, but Nikon's pace of development doesn't make me think they've got it in them to have been designing a "5D" niche camera. NOR does Nikon have the factory capacity to make another high-selling body at this time,or in the forseeable future.

As I see it, 2008 is the year where many people will decide to either piss,or get off the pot. The advantage of full frame capture is now so apparent to me. My Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM is a marginal performer on the D2x's high pixel density sensor. The lens just ain't quite good enough to make the D2x shine. But on the 5D with an adapter, that same exact lens yields significantly better images. If you're going to stick with APS-C 1.5 or 1.6x cameras, you've simply got to get the best lenses possible. There's no way around that. The highest performance lens-wise is gonna be on full-field,larger sensors. That's why the 5D's performance has been so widely hailed,and why the Nikon D3's performance is so widely acclaimed--the full frame capture size demands a lot less of lenses. Full frame is available now,at two price levels from Canon,and available from Nikon in one costly professional body. I can see a lot of people switching from Canon to Nikon and vice versa in the next two years.
There are going to be some products that the "other" camp will not be able to match,and for some people, the lens offerings will make an actual difference in which system is the most appealing.

What To Buy in Early 2008?

2008-01-16T11:08:00.000-08:00

Christmas 2007 sales were terrible. The worst since 2002. We are headed into a recession. The market barometers have fallen in the last couple days of trading. Stores need some money from us consumers,so get out there and buy,buy,buy! But, what to purchase now that it is early 2008? And,provided you're not in the mood to wait for the next best thing,what items can you buy right NOW,and use and enjoy even IF the next model comes out within the coming year?

Buffalo TeraStation Live network attached storage drive,1 Terabyte capacity model available for $499 from Frys.com

Nikon D40 kit $499 from many on-line retailers, $549 in-store. New stock D40 kits will soon include a VR-equipped 18-55 kit lens, the third iteration of this light,decent little zoom. An amazing little d-slr that can produce jazzy,punchy JPEG images.

Nikon D300 $1899 to $2099,when in stock. D300's are sold out at MOST larger retail and internet stores across America.

Canon EOS 40D, $1300 and available. Make sure to add the accessory grip for $199,and pick up the amazing EOS 580 EX-II weather sealed shoe mount flash unit,$450, which gives really good results.

EOS 5D $2199 or so. C'mon. You know you want a full-frame camera. And you know you do not want to pay $5,000 for it. The 5D will allow you to use millions of Nikkor lenses with adapters that cost as little as $17 (seventeen dollars!) from eBay dealers in the USA. Canon's 85mm f/1.8 lens is cheap and amazing, and Tamron and Sigma also make some sweet lenses.

Canon EOS 580 EX-II shoe mount flash. $450. Amazing unit. Well-built,good ergonomics,simple controls,powerful,battery-efficient. In a word, an excellent flash unit on the 5D,in my experience. Works great. Wonderful design.Easy to use.

Nikon 70-200 VR-G f/2.8 professional zoom lens. It's an amazing zoom lens for Nikon or Fuji d-slr cameras. If you do not own it,you are missing out on a wonderful tele zoom;good sharpness,good focusing,good ergonomics,great bokeh. This lens can be the cornerstone of a 2-lens system; if you only own TWO Nikkor zoom lenses, this ought to be one of the two zooms.

Fuji S5 Pro, apprx $1550 now. Sure it's only a 6MP camera, but so is the D40! The S5 Pro delivers beautiful color and tonality and that decidedly inaccurate but PLEASING Fuji skintone rendition. If you have F-mount lenses and want a camera for people pictures or family photography or available light portraits and many types of social photography, the S5's really worth a look. The Fuji has an image quality that's hard to define,since the S5 can be set up so,so many ways, but the best thing I can say about S5 images is that they have nice tonality,and a subtleness in the way colors are rendered--when the images are well-processed or when the in-camera settings are all appropriate to the shooting conditions and artistic intent of a capable photographer. I've also seen excess DR,like 400%, thrown at flat,low-contrast scenes or moderate contrast scenes,and have seen some drecky results where people went overboard with that type of excess DR application. I have also seem Fuji S5 film simulation results which were wayyyy overboard on saturation, resulting in heavy-handed,clownish,eye-candy images that look,well,kind of like bad 1980's photofinishing. Hopefully,the S5 is not the last d-slr Fuji releases,but if it is their last model,make sure you buy one or two before they are all gone. Now that Fuji has a D200-level body,it's a respectable,capable camera for many applications,and well worth $1500.

A fast single focal length lens for your Dx-sensored camera. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 wide angle. Or the Nikon or Canon 85mm f/1.8 telephotos. Or the Canon 100mm f/2 for $399. Something WIDE-aperture,and useful for YOUR shooting needs. But it must be a prime,and it must be a fast aperture lens. Even a 50mm f/1.8 will qualify. Fast. Prime. Light weight. Portable. Predictable. Non-threatening profile for use in social photography situations. Ya' gotta' own and use a nice prime lens or two!

That LONG zoom lens you've wanted. Two lenses spring to my mind as being the best values; the Tamron 200-500mm f/5~6.3 zoom for about $899, or the Sigma 80-400mm OS, for around the same general price. The advantage of the Tamron is its nifty build and sweet design and good handling and fair price,and the fact that it is a 200 to FIVE hundred, while the Sigma offers Optical Stablizer technology, and a versatile 80-400 FL range with acceptable weight and good handling.

Of course,all of the above stuff is what I'm giving you permission to buy. Spend freely at your local photo dealer's shop. Or at B&H,or Adorama,or KEH,or Camera World, or wherever people treat you right,and where you feel comfortable conducting business. And hey, if you've got your eyes on a 300/2.8, 400 or 500 or 600, or some other $4,500 to $7999 big lens, what the heck, buy that too! And of course, if there's something I've forgotten,like a new tripod,or a monopod,or a new small studio flash system,then why not spring for that too?

The State of D-SLR Photography as 2008 Begins

2008-01-02T22:08:00.000-08:00

Welcome To My 2008 Digital Photography Blog! Yeah, it's January 2 of 2008 and Nikon D3 camera bodies are out of stock at Adorama, B&H,and just about every other large store. If you're in need of a D3, look to smaller stores,and secondary markets. As with several recent launches of 'hot' Nikon products like the 70-200 VR, 24-120VR,200-400VR,18-200VR,D200,and now the D300, Nikon's distribution channel is simply starved for product. Currently D300's are being scalped on e-Bay by those who have the items. Oh well...that's the way it's going to be I suppose.

PMA 2008 is when many serious enthusiasts look for Canon to announce the EOS 5D follow-up/iteration; currently, 5D body prices are reasonable at just a little over 2,100 US dollars most places,and with some rebates it's possible to get the price down even lower if you're willing to jump through some hoops. I honestly do not think we'll see $1,500 5D bodies on clearance; instead,I think the body stands on its own merits,and $1999 at retail will empty the channel of 5D's almost as soon as the 5D successor is announced.

Once Nikon D300 bodies flood the market, Nikon will have a great seller on its hands. Currently, the camera is going for $2,099 at two well-known and very large New York City retail/online/mailorder houses,which is a $200 price gouge over the MAP of $1899,but then the demand is SKY-high and D300 bodies are in short supply,so some retailers will take advantage. Right now it is a seller's market for the Nikon D300.

2008 seems like a year in which a number of enthusiasts and serious shooters will feel the need to move up to newer bodies than what they are currently shooting. And making it easier to do that will be the ever-more-favorable prices on d-slr bodies and body/lens kits. The entry level Nikon D40 and EOS Rebel XTi prices are very low compared with what we had 18 months ago at the entry level; prices since Christmas 2006 have not fallen all "that" much on D-40 kits, but still, it's now under $500 for a D40 kit with the 18-55 lens. Late in 2007, Nikon suddenly announced that they would be adding VR or Vibration Reduction to the 18-55 kit lens,which is a good thing considering the len's slow maximum aperture and target audience. Still, for serious shooters, VR is a very worthwhile feature which greatly improves most panning shots, particularly slow-speed ones like at 1/4 to 1/8 second which is where a lot of panning shots will look good. The cancelling out of up-and-down camera movement during panning shots is one of the easiest places to see the benefits of a stabilized lens.

From my vantage point, it looks like a good time to be a Nikon shooter. And a good time to be a Canon shooter. And, if one looks at the price/value proposition, Pentax is sitting very,very pretty, with a very good deal on the K10D with in-body stabilization,and the redoubtable Pentax K-mount lens advantages. I think Pentax is giving a lot of value to serious hobbyist shooters,and they have some very,very interesting and truly UNIQUE prime lens designs which other mfrs. do not offer. At pretty good prices too! If I were not tied to a system, I'd give the Pentax system serious consideration. Very serious consideration.

One interesting thing I've recently read about is a Nikon G-series to Canon EF-mount adapter ring that allows electronic control over the aperture of Nikkor G-series lenses when used on Canon EF mount bodies! That the adapter actually works has been proven.The final price and manufacturing status are uncertain. It ought to be a highly useful adapter to own.

Speaking of adapters--EOS digital bodies like the 20-30-40D and EOS 5D allow the use of pre-Ai Nikkor lenses,with no problems. And so does the Nikon D40! It can mount pre-Ai Nikkor lenses too! Useful feature if you'd like to spend just a couple hundred dollars browsing the big,on-line used departments at Adorama.com or at KEH.com. Lenses which are still pre-Ai usually have chrome and black,metal barrel designs, with the scalloped (wave-like,with deeply-cut,machined finger grooves to aid in gripping the focus and aperture rings) and they also have a narrow,metal ring that encircles the lens,near the lens mount portion,with a black dot as a lens alignment point. The front-most part of the barrel and the focusing ring area is usually a bright aluminum color,and back by the diaphragm ring, or at the back of the focusing ring, there is often also the same aluminum-colored metal on the barrel--lenses that look like that are quite often in their native state, which is now called pre-Ai. Anyhow--there are some fine lenses from that era like the 35mm f/2 O or OC, the 85mm 1.8, the 105/2.5,and 35/1.4 which are pretty good optics, with pretty good imaging characteristics. The 50mm f/2 lens of this era is also quite good. The 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor is a lens from this era that works pretty well on the EOS 20D and 5D. So,keep in mind, the D40 will mount anything in F-mount,except for a couple of very rare,esoteric ultrawide lens designs. I've almost talked myself into getting a D40.

Well, getting caught up on the camera wars...it's a changing time now in both Canon and Nikon-land. It looks to me that the EOS 40D is finally an upgrade worth getting if you've been shooting a 20D or 30D. Michael Reeichman's original review of the 40D noted that he found its performance quite comparable to that given by the full frame EOS 5D. A few of the measurebators gave him flak, but he,and some other careful testers have demonstrated that the 40D's smaller 1.6x CMOS imager delivers very rich,saturated,sharp,clear 10 MP captures,and that the tonality of the images is lush,and well, about as nice as what the EOS 5D delivers. Wow...that's good image quality from a crop-sensored camera. I looked at a 20D-40D-5D comparison test referred to by Recihman, done by veteran photographer Miles Heckler,and Heckler's sample files of a studio scene were pretty impressive. The 20D images look rather dull and washed out compared with the 40D and 5D,especially at the higher ISO settings. But most impressive is how CLOSELY the 40D mimics the 5D's color and tonality,at least on the test scene. Image sizes were kept the same,by moving the 5D back from the scene, so that scene-to-scene comparisons were with the same sized images. The 5D beats the 40D image-quality wise mostly at the highest ISO settings of 800 at 1600 ISO,and the 5D is the winner only by a smidge,which speaks exceedingly well to how much Canon has done with its 10MP imager and image processing engine and all the other associated stuff that goes into a d-slr,like microlenses,AA filter strength,fill rates,noise reduction or not and if so then,when,where; image capture and processing bit depth and when does it go to 8-bit,dynamic range expansion processing routines,etc,etc.

I think it's obvious: based on how awesome the 40D's 10MP images look at even high ISO's of 800 and 1600,expect that the 5D successor camera will have an imager that performs *significantly better* than the 5D does,especially at elevated ISO settings. The 5D's imager is amply good,and the body is amply good to continue selling well I think. I don't see a real need to eliminate the 5D from the lineup at this time, but I do think Canon has the technological prowess to have a 5D replacement camera ready to announce at PMA 2008,which will be held January 28 through February 1 if my memory serves me.

Nikon and Canon are now engaged in a period of very healthy,intense competition,and Nikon's probably going to win the Japan market in d-slr sales this year,according to an article on dPreview's news page. No surprise that, that Nikon will win sales over Canon,since the D40 kit is such a hit,and enjoys a price advantage over the Canon Rebel Xti model that my friend Steve recently bought. Nikon's lower price attracts more first-time buyers,and also the D40 boasts in-camera image editing and cropping and redeye reduction and filter effects,plus two-level d-lighting which is pretty good at salvaging accidentally underexposed JPEGs,and other types of oddly-lighted scenes where some digital fill-flash type image processing is needed to give the images more "snap". Plus the D40 has that clever "beginner mode" hand-holding interface,and it's a superior product for camera counter demonstration. THe D40 is kind of,shall we say,Apple Macintosh-like in its clever beginner mode,and I think it's superior image processing and gadgety,Japanese-fun-time-like design makes it a better demonstration camera, and thus a better seller over the Xti,or almost any other camera of the lower and mid-classes. The D40 has got a UI advantage,and its beginner modes are very,very confidence inspiring. I used to sell cameras. The D40 is a fantastic featured camera,with easy,high-impact demo features,like in-camera cropping, or redeye reduction, or BW image conversion,or d-lighting. For the computer-less kid or grandma, the D40's in-camera editing modes make it more desirable than the Xti,at least to Japanese camera buyers.

Nikon's D3 is taking the High-ISO bastion by storm. The concert shooters are absolutely grooving on the 6400,and 12,800 ISO settings. The camera is at least three stops better than the D2x at the elevated ISOs,according to concert shooter Todd Owyoung's blog,located at http://ishootshows.com/

The only direct,lens-to-lens comparison of the 5D and D3 that I have seen was done by Ken Rockwell at http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/vs-5d-180mm.htm

Rockwell did his head-to-head D3 and 5D comparisons using the SAME 180mm f/2.8 ED AiS Nikkor on both the Nikon and the Canon bodies. This 180mm lens has ED glass,and is a large,well-built, apprx. $650 lens from twenty years ago. I own one,and have since 1986,and it is a fine lens. Rockwell's comparisons show me that the 5D and D3 are about equal at up to and including ISO 800,and that at each progressively higher ISO beyond 800, the D3 shows an advantage. And at the ridiculous ends, the 5D tops out and post-process pushing is the only way to get to the very-highest settings of 6400-12800-25600. For those who must shoot at the very-highest ISO settings currently possible,the D3 looks to be an excellent machine. Resolution-wise, I think other cameras actually better the D3,so if ultimate resolution is a concern, the D3 is currently not the best answer. As a sports/PJ/low-light machine, the D3 looks to me to be a dream camera based on specifications and the feature set and the sensor size; the High-ISO performance of the D3 is simply amazing. Amazing.

Nikon's D300 is a highly sought-after camera. My impression is that most users will like it quite a bit. I think the pictures I have seen out of the D300 prove that it is a vastly better High-ISO camera than the D2x or D2xs,and so,it will be adopted by many D2x users as an accompanying camera that's significantly better at elevated ISO shooting than the bigger,heavier D2x body,and that it'll work quite well for newspaper/wedding/portraiture work of most types,at a fair price for a nice camera body that's got a lot of pro-grade features but in a lighter,more-configurable half-height body,like Canon has been offering for some time. I think many people appreciate a half-height body to which a motor/dual battery/booster kind of effect is added AS NEEDED or IF needed, rather than being forced to always carry the "brick" body of an EOS 1 or D-single digit body.

I think 2008 is going to be a year in which a LOT of shooters get new equipment. 2008 is poised to be a transitional year,with great new models becoming available over the year,and with prices that are favorable,I think the amateur-serious enthusiast and pro segments of photography are going to see lots of people buy new bodies,and new lenses. Nikon has made two very nice new pro lenses for full-frame, their 14-24mm and their 24-70mm f/2.8 models,and has now added VR available in 200,300,400,500,and 600mm pro supertele lenses,at supertele prices. Bu also a 16-85mm VR lens,and an 18-55 kit lens with VR,and a 70-300 with VR and a 55-200 with VR, and then of course add to this the highly desirable and much sought-after 18-200 VR,and Nikon has made some very,very shrewd lens moves in the low- and mid-market,AND some spectacular moves in the pro-glass market. All within the last couple of years.

Consumer's like,and want stabilized lenses. Nikon now has a good lineup of VR lenses,and they range in price from dirt-cheap,to moderate,to upscale, to supertele. Including one hybrid field tele/macro, the 105 VR-G,which is an f/2.8 that functions well as a field lens,and does acceptably well as a macro lens. And including the 200 f/2 VR,which is one of the most-spectacular lenses ever created. Nikon's consumer/prosumer/enthusiast lineup loooks great these days.

Nikon's recent sales successes are related in some measure to its development of a full range of soccer-mom lenses,but also to their development of a group of lenses designed for burgeoning digital photography enthusiasts,many of who will pay around eight bills for an 11x zoom lens...as well as some other highly-capable lenses in the $800-$1699 price range. Stuff like the 17-35,70-200VR,17-55 DX,12-24 DX,and the new 14-24mm and 24-70mm f/2.8 nano-coating FX pro zoom models. Nikon's lenses have just gotten better and better,and Nikon seems to love selling lenses that cost $1100 to $1699,or more. The expansion of the serious enthusiast market means that expensive lenses like the 200-400 f/4 VR-G and 200mm f/2 VR-G lenses at roughly five thousand and four thousand dollars, are selling in numbers that would have been unheard of a decade ago. I think that 2008 will be a year in which MANY Nikon enthusiasts will increase their investment in the system.

What's WRONG With The Canon EOS 5D?

2007-10-10T22:00:00.001-07:00

What's Wrong With The Canon 5D? I've uncovered five weaknesses during my several months of ownership and use.  First,the accessory grip BG-4's ON-OFF switch has virtually no detent at the ON position,and in the course of very normal shooting and handling of the camera, the switch quite frequently makes its way far enough toward OFF that the grip's shutter release button is dead when I go to use it. This is a simple engineering failure; the EOS 5D grip's ON-OFF switch moves with very little force. On several occasions,over five months of use of the camera,I've gone to shoot with the vertical release,and it's accidentally slipped to OFF in the course of just handling/using the camera. It's annoying. [Nov 26,2007 Update:Since this writing, I've had three more instances of "dead release button when trying to shoot'.] 

The 5D's pentaprism allows a LOT of stray dust into the viewfinder system. I have a 30-year old Nikon FM which was last serviced 1987 and it has about as much crap inside it as my months-old new 5D has accumulated. Seriously.I suspect the 5D's eyepiece window is the culprit. The 5D's viewfinder/pentaprism/eyepiece system is one dust-leakin' mutha. I read about this problem before buying a 5D,and knew going in that it allows a lot of dust to get inside the camera and onto the viewfinder screen. It's a poorly-sealed system.   Here's a web article illustrated with good photos that show exactly how to remove the viewfinder screen and to clean out all the crap that'll accumulate inside your 5D's viewfinder. http://www.ascent-design.com/photo/Clean5D/

The third thing that's wrong with the EOS 5D is the autofocus system. The 5D uses a diamond-shaped AF point array that's too-centrally weighted,and which does not allow the use of off-centered AF points in the sure,positive manner that I am used to with the Nikon D2x. Also, the 5D does have some difficulties in ascertaining focus under flat,lower-contrast lighting, and also under some low-light scenarios,especially when only an outside,single AF point is in use. The outermost AF sensor brackets in the 5D simply do not meet my performance expectations under low-light or low-contrast lighting scenarios. The left and right edges of the frame are "served" by one AF point at the outermost point of the diamond; again, the 5D's main AF limitation is that it is weak when using off-center AF points. By contrast,the D2x allows you to use grouped off-center AF points, and with those groups of AF points doing the computing, the D2x is amazingly strong at nailing off-center targets. The D2x AF approach gives a higher priority to the edges of the frame,and particularly when photographing people in the portrait orientation, the D2x's grouped AF points can more-reliably pull focus under soft,low light levels like under studio flash modeling lamps. The heavily center-weighted,diamond-shaped AF point array Canon uses in its consumer and prosumer cameras is simply not as sophisticated,nor as costly, as what Canon or Nikon puts in some other camera bodies.

 While the 5D's AF performance is reasonably good MUCH of the time,it does not function all that well with the side AF points indoors in a lot of my shooting scenarios using either the 50mm f/1.4 EF, 85mm f/1.8 EF, 135mm f/2 L-series, nor with the 24-105mm f/4 L-series zoom. The 5D's AF system is simply not as sophisticated, nor as user-adjustable, nor as user-controllable as the autofocusing system in Nikon's D2x. That's my take on the 5D's AF system; while the 5D has a Very Good AF system, the D2x has an Excellent AF system. Compare the price,and compare the market niche,and this all makes sense.  

The 5D's fourth major flaw is a two-part problem with the viewfinder system. First problem area is the skimpy viewfinder information system. There's no information displayed except plus and minus on the exposure scale and any exposure comp dialed in,and the frames remaining in the buffer. There is NO DISPLAY INFORMATION that tells the user which exposure mode is selected! Yes,that's right: there is NO indication of which exposure mode is selected when looking thru the viewfinder! No metering pattern info, no ANYTHING, except for the exposure setting readouts and frames remaining. The 5D has minimal shooting information visible in the finder. Weird. Very,very weird.

Part Two of the fourth major flaw of the EOS 5D needs to be in all-caps: THE 5D's LCD INFO PRETTY MUCH DISAPPEARS IN VERY BRIGHT LIGHT. It's damned near impossible to see the metering readouts of the 5D when shooting under very bright outdoor lighting. The 5D's viewfinder LED's are so weak and underpowered I am amazed that this serious flaw was not found and rectified during beta testing of the bodies. Using this camera outdoors in very bright light conditions during July and August was a pain in the ass. The metering LED's are very underpowered.  

The viewfinder IMAGE, of the framing and focusing of the scene the lens sees, is quite,quite good. I can see almost all of the image area,all the way out to the corners while wearing my glasses. The viewfinder screen is bright,and has a smooth texture. I wish the screen were a bit more coarse and contrasty,and thus more geared toward manual focus ascertainment, but that's just my personal preference. The screen is optimized for autofocus operation with fast prime lenses,and under ideal to good conditions the viewfinder screen allows "reasonable" manual focus ascertainment. Under more-difficult conditions, the screen is not too good for manual focus ascertainment. I've shot the 5D with the Nikkor 85/1.4, 105 DC, 50/2 HC,105/2.5 AiS,and 300/4 AF-S and 400/3.5 and a few other manual focusing lenses. Under optimal to good conditions, the 5D's screen works reasonably well with the above lenses. Good Nikon glass performs very well on the 5D's sensor.  

To recap the viewfinder system's weaknesses: 1-The 5D is really is prone to allowing dust and junk into the finder system,to the point you can easily,easily see the crud as you use the camera. 2-In bright light, it can be VERY difficult/impossible to see the 5D's exposure info through the viewfinder. The LED's can virtually disappear and become virtually invisible when shooting under very bright, i.e. under "summertime" conditions. On the plus side, the finder image is large,clear,and not 'squinty' or 'tunnel-like'.

Summary: All told, what's wrong with the EOS 5D is almost all body-related stuff. The camera is generally pretty good in almost all areas,except for a few things. The body and its subsystems are really not as sophisticated as those found in Canon's or Nikon's top-grade bodies,but then the 5D does not retail for $4,500 to $7,999 as do the top-grade bodies. The 5D allows dust into the viewfinder system MORE readily than any body I've ever used. The 5D has only minimal shooting information visible in the finder. And the finder's LCD readouts are seriously underpowered,and pretty much blank out to invisibility,or near-invisibility,when using the camera under bright ambient light shooting conditions. And the 5D is fitted with an AF system that's kind of low-rent compared with what I expect these days from a "pro" body, but this is not a "pro Canon", it is Canon's entry-priced,entry-level Full-Frame digital SLR body.

On the plus side, the sensor's performance is excellent. Truly excellent. The low, medium, and high-iso ranges are all excellent performers. The frame rate is fine,and in social situations the 3FPS rate gives a nice separation between frames. I like the 5D's ability to remove the grip,and to have a half-height camera when portability or smaller profile is advantageous. Shutter lag is acceptable for social photography. Card write times are fine. There's not a lot really "wrong" with the 5D except when you try and shoot with it under bright, outdoor light conditions which make the viewfinder information display's faded-out green characters almost impossible to see without resorting to physically shrouding the area surrounding the viewfinder eyepiece. Aside from the five major flaws I point out,the 5D has a few minor flaws that are related to Canon's goofy button-and-menu control system and Canon's goofball ergonomics and camera control 'decisions'; overall, the EOS 5D is a very,very good image-maker. The 5D makes beautiful images. Across a wide range of ISO's and a wide range of light levels. The camera's sensor is MUCH, much better for higher-ISO shooting than the Nikon D2x,for example. An excellent sensor like the 5D's in a body as excellent as the Nikon D2x would make for an incredible professional camera.

Addendum, August 10,2008: See this thread detailing problems other 5D owners have found at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=28908041&page=1

Canon EOS 5D Review: 90 Days With the 5D

2007-08-03T20:15:00.000-07:00

Well, it's now been a little over three months that I've shot with the EOS 5D and its accessory dual battery grip. I've used the 24-105mm f/4 L zoom, the EF 50/1.4, the EF 85/1.8,and the EF 135/2 L-series on the 5D, as well as Nikon's 105mm Defocus Control lens and a few other Nikkors. Now that I've shot a few thousand frames with the 5D, I'm familiar with the kind of results it can produce. Overall, I think the 5D is a fine camera, but one which could benefit from a better body with a little bit better feature set and design. Specifically, the 5D DOES allow a TON of crap to make its way inside the viewfinder system--it's the worst SLR design I have ever shot with in terms of allowing dust to enter the viewscreen/pentaprism areas. The EOS 5D could use a pop-up flash in a major way. And a couple more control buttons. Yet still, the 5D has proven itself to be a practical, easy-to-use, versatile camera, with a great mix of value, image quality, and simplicity in use.

One of the 5D's biggest operational problems is the ultra-soft touch ON/OFF switch on the accessory battery grip. Normal use and handling of the camera can turn the ON/OFF switch slightly forward, away from the ON position by a millimeter or two, rendering the grip's shutter release inoperational. The control has far,far too light of a touch,and has an almost non-existent detent at either ON or OFF. Numerous times, I've found that the vertical grip's trigger is dead, even though I NEVER turn the grip's trigger OFF. The switch is large,and has no safety lock...it's free to move toward OFF at any time, with almost no pressure. A crappy design,really. One must constantly make sure the trigger on the grip STAYS where it was put, since it wanders to OFF of its own accord quite often.

Lens-wise, the 85mm f/1.8 Canon EF lens is a tremendous value for the money spent. The 135mm f/2 L is a good telephoto lens, on par with Nikon's 135 f/2 Defocus Control lens,with maybe a bit higher image contrast being shown by the Canon lens.
Canon's 50mm f/1.4 EF is amply sharp and contrasty ,and it focuses very quickly, but the 50/1.4 EF has had some very,very odd failures to initiate autofocus over the last few weeks. While all three of these prime lenses appear well-made and feel solid and they handle and shoot very nicely, I must confess that the operational failures I've had with the $345 50mm lens are kind of pissing me off as of late. The 50's failure to initiate AF has been when the lens got confused and went wayyyy out of focus, and would simply NOT make an effort to seek focus until manually shifted out of AF and into to Manual focus,and the lens ring had to be turned and turned and turned by hand. Perhaps this 50 is a clunker--I've had this odd AF failure happen three times,and three times it has cost me the shot. I've never had a similar experience before or since with any other lenses of any brand.

I've only recently, this week in fact, purchased the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L-series zoom and the 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus lenses, and have only shot those two lenses a little bit, and only on informal stuff. All of the Canon EF lenses I've used have been good to excellent performers, and the camera's AF performance has been MOSTLY very good, with a few occasional failures to acquire focus where more-sophisticated AF systems (like the one in the D2x) can be utilized for surer performance. But on MOST subjects I've used it for, the EOS 5D's AF system has been pretty good with the lenses I own. One thing is also clear: top-quality Nikkor lenses like the 85mm f/1.4, 105mm f/2 DC, 135mm f/2 DC, and 300mm f/4 AF-S and 300mm f/2.8 AFS-II are superb optical performers on the 5D's excellent sensor.

ISO flexibility is one area where the 5D does well; its performance at elevated ISO settings like 500,640,and 800, is noticeably better than what the D2x can do at those ISO settings. AND, and this is a big and, the 5D's sensor is more sensitive than the meter indicates in most real-world scenes I've run into. The 5D is an excellent low-light d-slr.Better than anything I've yet shot.

Keep in mind that since the 5D's design, Canon has cribbed/stolen/copycatted Nikon's "AF ON" button,and has added the AF ON button to their new pro sports/action EOS 1D Mark III and to the upcoming EOS 40D semi-pro camera. While it's a crude system compared to the two-button,user-customizable AF-AE buttons Nikon's D1 and D2 series have always offered, Canon's copycat move to add a single "AF ON" button is an excellent ergonomics example of where NIKON has long been a leader, and Canon's body ergonomics are and have been seriously lacking. Canon is adding an AF ON button, but is not adding the AE or light meter button Nikon has in its pro bodies. However, Canon engineers are willing to copycat half of Nikon's engineering and ergonomics leadership position and with the adoption of an AF ON button, Canon has finally recognized that a human's right thumb can actually serve a purpose in the control of the camera; in camera control ergonomics, Canon still lags behind Nikon in designing useful,logical camera control systems. In terms of control buttons, the EOS 5D lags behind most Nikon body designs. The 5D is a very simplified body.

Autofocus on the 5D is a mixed bag. Usually the 5D delivers very good AF, but occasionally,it stumbled and provides just the dumbest, crappiest AF performance you can imagine. Weird. I do not think that the user can assign AF points very intuitively with Canon's body controls, and I think that the tiny multi-controller "button" Canon uses is a joke. Better than nothing, but a laughable piece of crap compared with the large, positive, foolproof 4-way-controller Nikon has used for years. Again, imitation may be a sincere form of flattery, but the diminutive Canon multicontroller is VERY difficult to use when one wishes to assign AF to the two points just inside the outermost AF brackets, on either side of the viewfinder screen. Canon's multicontroller does a horrible job when trying to assign AF to any of those four total outer AF brackets,and it represents the same engineering failure on the 5D as on the 20D. If memory serves, the 20D was the first Canon to use the multi-controller "nipple",and the 5D is not far removed from the 20D,engineering-wise. Like I said earlier, while the 5D normally has excellent AF performance, at times it seems very,very "stupid" when using some pretty good Canon lenses--not slow consumer zooms, but the "good stuff". On a scale of 1-10, the 5D gets an overall AF score of 8.75 in my book.

In terms of image quality, the 5D delivers excellent image quality at all normal ISO settings. The camera is not too large or bulky,nor is it overly heavy. I like the "look" of full-frame digital captures very much. The 12.8 megapixel image sensor delivers clean,noise-free images under even poor lighting conditions. The files offer excellent workability in Photoshop. While the body controls and autofocus systems both are somewhat "simplified" and "middle of the road" compared to pro-level cameras, the price is nowhere near as high as the pro-level bodies from either Nikon or Canon. The EOS 5D offers a lot of bang for the dollar spent,and the files it produces are excellent. it is not a perfect camera, nor is it a particularly fast-handling nor a fast-reacting camera; it feels quite slow,mechanically and in terms of overall responsiveness, compared to the Nikon D1 and D2 series bodies I am used to. The EOS 5D is basically a superb image sensor enveloped in a mid-level camera body. The viewfinder information is very difficult to see in bright light. The viewfinder information is exceedingly skimpy. The body controls are rather primitive. But the pictures.....ah...the pictures; the image quality is where the 5D truly delivers.

Full Frame Digital With the EOS 5D

2007-04-27T08:45:00.000-07:00

I've gone back to full frame 35mm-style capture, but this time instead of a Nikon F-series body, I'm using a Canon EOS 5D digital SLR. After thinking about it for quite some time,and after reviewing a lot of my photos, I decided I'd had it with the small capture format of APS-C or DX-sensored cameras for my "people pictures" and social photography.

I elected to go with the 5D and 24-105mm f/4 Image Stabiliser L-series zoom lens, the 50mm f/1.4 EF USM normal lens, the 85mm f/1.8 EF USM short telephoto, my current 100mm f/2.8 EF Macro, and the 135mm f/2 L-series telephoto lens. I also have a Nikon to EOS lens mount adapter ring,which allows use of F-mount lenses on EOS bodies,and it works well.

Yesterday I shot a few images with my 180mm f/2.8 ED AiS Nikkor on the 5D,as well as a few with the 135mm f/2 L lens. The Canon has prettier bokeh,and significantly higher contrast and color saturation than the 21-year-old 180mm ED I've had since 1986. The 180 AiS's substantial weight and massiveness counterbalance the 5D body very well in horizontal and vertical modes without the grip on the body,and the old lens's slow-ratio manual focusing throw in the 30-foot to 6-foot focusing range makes it a very easy lens to focus manually, without concern for hair-trigger mis-focusing mistakes,which often are made when using AF lenses with their ultra-quick focus throws in manual focusing mode. The 180 AiS focuses very well on the 5D--smooth helicoid,long focal length,wide aperture and high magnification all together add up to easy focusing.

I shot some stuff around evening time,indoors, at f/2 and 1/40 to 1/50 second under dimmer tungsten+filtered window light,using the 135 f/2 L Canon lens and my battered 1990's 135 f/2 AF Defocus Control Nikkor lens (first version). Eh...the Canon's a slightly better lens,with less corner fall-off, but otherwise the 135 L's not all "that much better" than the 135 DC Nikkor, which I must admit is kind of disappointing. It's early,and the light has been flat here,and I've not made that many exposures, but the 135/2 L doesn't impress me "that" much,and I thought it really would blow my doors off.With the manual Nikon lens on the 5D, the 5D's focus screen and the 135 DC's focusing throw and slightly stiff action (on my old beat up copy the focus throw is a bit stiff) makes for somewhat slow,disappointing manual focusing at closer ranges under 20 feet...using the autofocus system of the Canon 135mm lens is preferrable to the 135 Nikkor in MF mode.

The camera has one stuck-on red pixel group near the far,far right lower corner of the frame,visible mostly in low (EV 4 or lower) scenes,and the sensor was _IMMACULATELY_ free of dust. The viewfinder view screen/prism was 100% free of dust yesterday. But now 24 hours later, I've gotten two dust bunnies on the viewfinder screen already...no big deal. It was nice to buy a new camera with an immaculately clean sensor.

The LCD is a weak area of this camera. It's just an average-quality screen image,and it's hard to see outdoors. The viewfinder is mostly visible to me with my eyeglasses on,and the image is quite usable for manual focusing,at least in decent light. The camera's shutter lag time and mirror return times are reasonably fast, but nowhere NEAR as responsive as the D1 or D2 series Nikons. Shutter noise is kind of dull but clattery,with nothing high-pitched or shrill in the shutter or mirror noise. Loud-ish, yet not too objectionable is how I'd describe the 5D's firing sounds. The camera and 24-105-L combo feels solid and weighty. The body has a large,chunky grip which suits my lengthy fingers well,and the body has a heft to it.

I'll know more about the 5D as I get to explore it over the next few weeks, but sufice it to say--I am VERY happy to see the background control and angles of view I can get at the telephoto end of the 24-105 zoom,as well as the wide angle looks I can get at 24 to 28mm. I'm very anxious to shoot the 85/1.4 AF-D and 105mm DC Nikkors on this camera,and to compare their performance with that of the 135mm-L Canon lens. I also look forward to seeing just how my new 85mm 1.8 EF Canon handles and performs.

Full Frame Digital Versus APS-C Digital

2007-03-20T19:52:00.001-07:00

Preface: I worked on the following article over several nights. It's rough, repetitious,and wayyyy too long. I've included stuff that ought to be edited out, but what I tried to do as I wrote this was to shed some light on a few differences between APS-C and larger format cameras, like 35FF or 120 roll film in either 6x6 or 6x4.5 format. So many people are unaware of what HFD or hyperfocal distance means, and are unaware of how DOF does not respond "equally" or in a linear fashion. I often read facile rule of thumb comments that say one needs only 1 and 1/3 stops wider an aperture when using an APS-C camera to get the "equivalent depth of field" of a 35FF format camera. A little bit of research will show you that achieving "equivalent depth of field" between APS-C and 35FF is sometimes *impossible*. As in, *impossible*. The differences between formats can be worked both ways too--it is not a one-way street,and I am not attempting to advocate that 35F is "better" than APS-C, but it is DIFFERENT. And at times, there is *NO EQUIVALENT* attainable between APS-C and 35FF. Please, take note: I am not saying the increased DOF per angular view of APS-C is better than the decreased depth of field per angular view of 35FF--but it is different. In a shorthand way one might say that landscapers love the deeper DOF, and portrait/fashion/studio people realize the APS-C format is perhaps a bit too small a format for the ultimate in versatility, and that APS-C in many situations pushes their images too much toward the deep DOF end of the spectrum.

The web is full of people who have never studied optics or lenswork,and who have a never made photographs with a 4x5 or 120 camera,and who thus really don't have any REAL experience with what it's like to work with a format that is distinctly different in size and pictorial rendering than the much-smaller 35FF or APS-C formats. If all you've ever shot with is an APS-C fomat camera, it's probably impossible for you to imagine how RESTRICTIVE a 120 rollfilm SLR is when you want to try and get deep depth of field using the normal 80mm lens. Shooting in 6x6 format with the normal angle of view 80mm lens set to f/8 and focused at 10 feet, DOF extends from 8.57 feet to 12 feet, for a total DOF band depth of 3.43 feet. Using an APS-C camera with a 31.4mm lens, focused at 10 feet, at f/8, DOF extends from 6.83 feet to 18.7 feet, for a total DOF band of 11.9 feet.

Ponder this: a 6x6 camera will yield a depth of field band that's LESS THAN three and a half feet deep at f/8 at 10 foot focus. But, if you put down the 6x6 format camera and pick up an EOS 20D with its zoom lens set to 31.4 mm, that format will pull depth of field from 1.75 feet closer than would the 6x6 format camera. Where the 6x6 format camera gives a shallow 3.43-foot deep DOF band ,the smaller EOS 20D gives a solid,expansive 11.9-foot deep band extending out to almost 19 feet, while the 6x6 Bronica would cut off sharp focus at 12 feet. To recap,the 6x6 medium format camera gives a DOF band of 3.43 feet, while an APS-C camera gives a DOF band that's 11.9 feet deep when both cameras are fitted with the "normal" lenses for their respective format sizes and focused at 10 feet.

I can assure you I studied these issues,a long time ago,and what I've tried to write is based on both science and practical,as in 'actual pictures made' photography experience with 4x5,120,35mm film,and APS-C digital cameras. About 34 years of shooting, first with 620 rollfilm, then with 35mm adjustable camera in 1974, then 120 rollfilm TLR cameras which used to be cheap and plentiful,and most recently and finally almost exclusivly with APS-C digital SLRs.

The Atkins article gives this rule-of-thumb comparison of depth of field between APS-C, 35FF,and 6x9 rollfilm at "moderate focusing distance" . If 35FF has a depth of field value that is 1.0, then APS-C brings roughly 1.6x MORE depth of field than 35FF, while 6x9 cm rollfilm capture brings only 0.4 as much DOF as does 35FF. So, to reiterate,the numbers are 1.6x, 1.0, and 0.4. APS-C has more DOF than 35FF by a factor of 1.6x, and 6x9 cm has less DOF than 35FF. This only holds true at moderate focusing distances which are well below 1/2 of the Hyperfocal Distance. Beware of the carefully-constructed comparison photo "example" seen in a popular web article showing "equal" depth of field at a distances of about 1 meter,using some small models on a monopoly board. YES, it's possible to go to The Luminous Landscape and see a carefully-constructed sample photo showing a small-sensored P&S digicam and a 1.6x Canon's output,with "equalized" depth of field and identical angles of view, with close-range focusing showing very similar image characteristics. The problem is, the sample photo's situation has been cherry-picked,and the focusing range has a background distance of probably no more than 1.2 meters...there's no distant background to see,and the depth of field characteristics at CLOSE range shift dramatically as the focusing distance moves out toward even 2 meters; with the tiny-sensored-cameras, once your focus distance gets out into even moderate distances like 2.5 meters, your pictures will almost ALL have depth of field that rapidly extends right to infinity,meaning that almost ALL normal scenes will be to state it plainly, "deep depth of field scenes".

The LL article shows that equally-deep DOF can be had with a point and shoot and a small-sensored d-slr; yes,true. But the example does not address focusing at distances approaching hyperfocal distance, NOR does the example show a _SHALLOW_ depth of field comparison, since no parity can be achieved, hence my use of the term cherry-picked. The article I obliquely reference is typical of the academic type of half-truths so many web-published articles point out. The use of the Monopoly board is funny though!

There is no "Lens Magnification Factor" with APS-C. You're using an entirely different FORMAT when you use an APS-C camera. A 100mm lens projects the same size of image on an APS-C body as it does on a Full Frame body, but on the APS-C body, the edges of the lens's image circle are cropped off. Re-read that sentence again if you need to. A 100mm lens projects the SAME SIZED image on an APS-C body as it projects on a Full Frame body. The magnification of the 100mm lens is the same, no matter if the full image circle of the lens is captured, or if some of the circle's periphery is cropped off and not captured--the magnification of the subject with a 100mm lens is the SAME, no matter what format or size of sensor catches the light rays!!! That is a FACT! However, there are many people who say that an APS-C sensor "magnifies the image" of each lens mounted on the camera and in that contention they are WRONG; all the APS-C sensor does is to record only the center portion of the lens's projected circular image. I know that fact is hard to believe for many. But it's true. There is no Lens Magnification Factor when using a crop-sensored d-slr.

APS-C is a different FORMAT than is 35FF. Many people have insufficient experience with formats other than APS-C digital,and thus they fail to understand why,or exactly how, the various formats DIFFER from one another in real-world picture-making scenarios and how different formats bring different "looks" to their pictures. Keep in mind that MUCH of what you read on popular internet photography forums is incorrect,and when the subject turns to lenses and optics, MOST of what passes for fact on today's internet is only half-truth at best.

PART 1: Different Formats Behave Differently In The Real World

Format size matters a LOT in terms of depth of field performance. Those who have shot 4x5 sheet film, 120 rollfilm, 35FF, and crop-sensor d-slr's can appreciate, from their OWN experience how larger format and smaller format cameras perform very differently in the real world. Those who have shot large format, medium format, and 35FF know, from actual experience, that moving to a smaller format camera brings with it greater mobility, lighter weight, and shorter lens lengths in all categories; as format size gets smaller, wide angle,normal,and telephoto lens lengths can be made shorter and shorter and shorter. Those who have actually shot multiple, different formats will tell you that one of the single largest differences between large,medium,and 35FF formats is the difference in image "look" due to depth of field differences and lens performance characteristics between the three formats. Until you've actually shot large,medium,and miniature formats (4x5, rollfilm,and 35FF) then you're probably not truly experienced in how the size of the your camera's capture format affects the way the camera records images using lenses,and how format size affects the photographic process. Sometimes, it's a matter of nuance between what two formats can do better,while at other times using the wrong format of camera can make it almost impossible to get what one wants to achieve,pictorially-speaking.

I have shot 4x5,120,35FF,and APS-C,and currently own cameras of all four formats. I happen to own a Fujinon 150mm f/5.6 lens for 4x5 which is my main 4x5 lens; I own a Bronica PS 150mm lens for use with both 6x6 and 6x4.5 film backs, and I own a 75-150 Nikon Series E lens which I used a LOT on 35FF,and have also used the 150mm focal length quite a bit on APS-C Nikon and Fuji and EOS 20D bodies. My Bronica medium format slr could be consider a three-format camera: I have multiple 6x6 and 645 backs for it,and I also have 35mm panorama back for Bronica SQ. I bought into the Bronica SQ line of camera bodies and lenses in the early 1990's because I did not want one of the many slightly-smaller,slightly lighter 645 rollfilm SLR cameras that were popular then, but I instead wanted a rollfilm SLR camera that could shoot BOTH 6x6 and 645 format images,using the the same lenses but with different rollfilm backs for each format I wanted to shoot in. Different formats have different uses. Having three lenses, 65-80-150 and two rollfilm capture formats made my Bronica SQ investment more useful to me than just buying a 645-only camera like a Bronica ETRs or a Mamiya 645 or the Pentax 645. Plus, the Bronica SQ 645 backs I bought for the SQ series bodies capture their images in a vertical orientation,not a horizontal one. The 645 format is nice for portraiture,since so many shots will look best as vertical compositions.

To those who ask what DOES a larger format do to the pictures? Let me try and give you a short answer. The smaller the film or digital sensor capture size, the more you can get in-focus using normal f/stops like let's just say f/8. With a large camera like a 4x5 using a normal length lens at f/8, there is not very much depth of field either in front of or behind the focus distance. On 4x5,you'd better be thinking f/32, not f/8 if you want much DOF. Moving downward in capture size,you'll find a 75 or 80mm lens is standard for 120 square rollfilm pictures. Shooting with a 35FF camera and its normal 50mm lens gives you deeper DOF than does a rollfilm SLR with its 80mm normal lens. 35FF is a nice format, one that allows both deep, AND shallow depth of field compositions with a huge array of EXISTING lenses. 35FF is a format that's been fully exploited by the camera and lens companies for around five decades; APS-C is a new format,and the majority of the time we are using lenses designed for 35FF use on our newfangled APS-C cameras,and that's not all peachy-keen.

The reality of shooting with any brand's APS-C cameras is that the normal angle of view lens is a relatively SHORT focal length of only about 31 millimeters. With a 31mm normal lens set to f/8, an APS-C format camera will deliver a HUGE amount of depth of field. Simply a HUGE amount of inherent depth of field,ready to come out as soon as the focusing distance stretches out a little bit longer than a big sectional sofa's length. Notice how I said an APS-C camera will "deliver a HUGE amount of depth of field"? Please take note; if you want deep depth of field, APS-C delivers deep depth of field in a big way: as much as 1.6 to 1.9 times, to as much as 2.85 times MORE depth of field than 35FF delivers, with the SAME angular field of view,using the example lens of a 31.25mm lens on APS-C and 50mm on 35FF. The amount "more" DOF APS-C yields is dependent upon how close the lens is focused in relation to the hyperfocal distance for the focal length in question.

You can look at the APS-C camera's delivery of deep DOF as a positive in some cases. In other cases, with other subject matter, deep DOF might not be wanted and might be seen as a negative. In landscape photography, deeper-than-35FF depth of field with apertures like f/8 on a top-grade camera like the Nikon D2x is pretty nifty. F/8 is not diffraction limited on the D2x, and f/8 and a smaller image shot with a 35mm lens will get you MORE depth of field than using a 35FF camera and a 50mm lens. In people photography,however, APS-C has a disconcerting tendency toward being on the side of creating too MUCH DOF in real-world photo studios and living rooms and outdoor locations, and I am not saying this to be negative, but there are BIG,real,observable differences in the "look" between APS-C and 35FF cameras when used for many "people photography" situations. It's not that APS-C is useless for people photography,and that 35FF is Nirvana, but the truth is somewhere in between.

Now, if you've ever struggled to pull deep depth of field from a landscape on 120 rollfilm, you've run into the need for something along the lines of f/32 at which depending on time of day and film speed might mean exposures as long as 1/2 to 3 seconds. That LARGER FORMAT 6x6 camera's capture area and its 80mm normal lens needs to be stopped wayyyyy down to pull anything resembling deep depth of field. Frankly, 645 makes some sense to me as a landscape format if you want deeper depth of field,especially if your camera is set to shoot horizontals easily. The smaller area of 6x45cm versus the 6x6 square gives you the ability to get a little bit more depth of field,at either larger f/stops, and/or higher shutter speeds,plus its relatively large capture format gives better detail than 35mm film can.

APS-C's small physical size means your wide-angle lenses must be very,very short focal lengths. Shorter focal lengths bring deeper and deeper DOF. As one down-sizes the capture format, the hyperfocal focusing distance of each focal length of lens grows shorter and shorter. Go to the on-line depth of field calculator,and look up for yourself the hyperfocal distance for a 50mm lens when it is used on an APS-C body and when the SAME lens is used on a 35FF body. One downside of APS-C is the need for wideangle lenses in the under-18mm range, which necessitates complicated,costly,aspherical lens designs to get rid of geometric distortion that's pretty easy to avoid even when using non-aspherical designs on longer lenses on the larger 35FF format. So, APS-C necessitates more sophisticated,costly,and hard to make aspherical wide angle lens designs,which is not as big a problem as when the capture format is larger. 35FF's larger capture size means that any given wide angle focal length will show a vastly wider angle on every scene than that same lens will show on any APS-C camera. A 14mm lens encompases an angle of view that's a hell of a lot "wider" on a 35FF camera than it is on an APS-C camera.

Many shooters find themselves being forced to move farther away from subjects to compensate for the APS-C sensor's cropping off of every lens's imaging circle. Increasing camera-to-subject distance is the first,easiest,and best way to increase depth of field. The short focal lengths needed on APS-C bodies,and the closer hyperfocal distances due to the APS-C format's smaller size relative to 35FF both,in concert, work togehter to help boost depth of field on APS-C photographs. The common use of fairly short focal length settings on APS-C cameras, combined with the increased camera-to-subject distances together make it almost *impossible* to create anything even remotely resembling a shallow depth of field "look" with an APS-C camera and a wideabgle lens. APS-C is a capture format that is either cursed or blessed with deep DOF,depending on how you want your images to look,and on what "looks" you wish to be able to create. 35FF offers a good mix of "looks", and the lenses to create these various looks are all in existence,right now,today; the same can NOT be said for APS-C format cameras--this format has been in existence since 1999,and as yet,not all the lenses needed have been made for APS-C, and many never will be made.

The APS-C lens needs to deliver high spatial frequency information to a small,densely-packed sensor that needs a 28mm diameter image circle. The 35FF format uses a 43mm diameter circle of coverage from the lens,and depends more on good edge-to-edge performance across a larger image area. Put a 100mm lens on a 35FF camera or an APS-C camera,and the SIZE of the image projected will be the same on both cameras, but the outer portions of the 100mm lens's image circle WILL be recorded on an EOS 5D,while the outer edges of the len's 43mm image circle will NOT be recorded on a 20D body.

APS-C has taken photography one step closer to the ultimate in the consumer snapshot ethos,which was a Kodak invention called the Disc format. Kodak engineers knew that with even 126 and with the even smaller 110 film format cameras, that the film formats of 126 and 110 were both too LARGE to allow for a good,motion-stopping shutter speed with a small enough f/stop to provide hyperfocal depth of field deep enough to get into the 2.5 foot to infinity range using ISO 100 or 200 film. Consumers using 35mm FF, 126, and 110 were STILL getting out of focus blobs when people got too close to the camera. Kodak engineers undertook the task of eliminating out of focus close-range subjects,permanently, by shrinking the film format smaller than had ever been offered for a mass-market camera (ie not a "spy camera" like a costly Minox or Tessina,but a Grandma-and Mom-affordable camera). Kodak designed and invented and built millions of Disc cameras,which due to the ultra-small format needed an ultra-short lens for a normal angle of view. Consumer digicams with the smallest of sensors...well, there's the disc format concept of small capture size/deep DOF/not much need for critical focusing coming back with a sensor instead of a rotating flat cardboard disc with film catching the light rays from that teensy-tiny little lens!

The small format and short focal length lenses used by the ultra-small Disc format cameras meant sharp focus from about 2.5 feet to Infinity. The Disc format cameras were all focused at their hyperfocal distance at the factory,and therefore there was never any need to focus! It was ALL in-focus! Woo-hoo! With the Disc format, it was * impossible* to throw the background out of focus. The Disc format was based on the NEED to create a film format physically small enough to allow a very short focal length lens to be set to hyperfocal focusing distance,and thus to eliminate the need for ANY focusing on the part of the end-user. *Everything* would be in focus,even pretty doggone close-up grand babies,and kitties,and flowers. The diminutive capture format,and its neccessarily short focal length lens meant that Kodak engineers had created a no-fuss, no-worry,foolproof picture making machine. And they did it by boldly going much SMALLER than even 110 format's postage stamp sized negative and dropping all the way down to a capture size that's in the size range of what today's cheap digicams use,to get THEIR deep depth of field off of small format captures. Brilliant Kodak engineering. And the underlying basis of today's small-sensor digicams. A little history lesson there.

35FF allows you to throw the background out of focus with truly fast wide angle lenses, with all normals, and with all telephotos. AND it allows you to pull reasonably deep DOF too,if you'd like that. But APS-C shifts the capture size smaller, bringing deeper DOF with every angle of view equivalence. This is what new shooters seem to miss; a significant change has occurred in the shift from 35FF to APS-C cameras,and it's not just about "equivalent focal lengths". It's about lenswork. And capture size. It's about tools,like lenses,and how they actually WORK in places like basketball courts,track and field and soccer fields,portrait studios,and on-location in all types of situations. The hallmark of professional portraiture, a sharply-rendered sitter or group, with an out of focus and a truly non-destracting background has been hurt pretty badly by the APS-C shift. Due to the way optics rears its ugly head, Nikon and most other manufacturers have not made wide angle lenses with maximum apertures wide enough (like f/1.4) to compensate for the increased DOF the smaller APS-C cameras deliver. So far, most camera makers have only produced f/4 wide angle lenses, and in some cases f/2.8 wide angle lenses, but what would be actually needed to overcome the smaller capture size would be some wides with apertures as wide as f/0.7 or f/0.8, and 70mm-75mm lenses as fast as f/1.2. Such lenses are nowhere to be bought,and might never be manufactured.

ULTRA-Important FACTS To Remember: DOF increases HUGELY as the focusing distance approaches the hyperfocal distance. The smaller the capture format,the sooner the lens will get to hyperfocal distance. Consider that once your format gets small,like APS-C small, there's a tipping point where even though objects are out of focus,and beyond the stated depth of field band,that those objects still have ample visual clarity to identify and to draw attention away from the foreground subject. The inherently SMALL capture size of APS-C format, and the combination of necessarily short focal length lenses like 18 to 50 mm lenses means that using a lens as long as 50mm on APS-C, you can shoot photos of people who are only 2 to 3 meters away,and even at f/5.6, the background 45 feet behind your subject will actually be rendered in-focus-enough to be somewhat distracting. The downward shift in focal lengths needed to make wide-normal-and tele lenses on APS-C format camera brings us right up to and then takes us past a "tipping point"--a point where we often find that there's MORE depth of field than we'd really like to have. This is the area that a careful analysis of my own photos has made me conclude I simply had to get back to full frame capture. This paragraph is perhaps the most essential paragraph to understand in this essay.

Medium format in the form of 6x6 or 12 frames on 120 roll film gives you a lot of room to crop,from a large negative. A 150mm is a moderate telephoto lens on 6x6 format and it feels sort of like an 85mm lens feels on 35FF to me.When you use a 150mm lens on 6x6 it does NOT DO DEEP DOF, not even close to what you can achieve on APS-C with a similar angle of view lens. As one goes larger in capture size, it becomes harder and harder to make pictures that have deep depth of field,unless the lens is stopped wayyyy down, or you use camera movements as on a view camera.

35FF has significantly more Depth of Field freedom than does 6x6 rollfilm. 35FF gives the photographer the freedom to either open up and blow things out, or to stop down and to pull pretty deep DOF. With a 35FF camera and lenses, there are some VERY wide-aperture Canon autofocusing lenses that can make shallow depth of field images,even in the wide-angle focal length ranges like 24mm and 35mm. 35FF can also be stopped down to f/11 or so and deep DOF effects can be obtained. 35FF offers the serious shooter a wide range of options in terms of camera-to-subject distances,angle of view, focal length,close-focusing,and so on. There is no format that has more lenses designed for it than the 35FF format. Canon EF mount and Nikon F lens mounts have several hundred different lens choices available. 35FF can do very shallow DOF work,moderately deep DOF work, and pretty good deep DOF work over a wide range of focal lengths,and there are lenses galore that were designed for 35FF. 35FF has been "king" ever since the 1953 Leica M3 set the standard. Larger and SMALLER formats have been tried, like Kodak's Bantam 135 or 828 format, the cartridge-loading 126 format,and the Half-Frame 35mm format models like the Olympus Pen half-frame series, and two decades later, 35mm Half-Frame models made by Yashica-Contax/Kyocera,with the Yashica Samurai line of Half-Frame 35mm film SLR's. In the late 70's-early 80's there was the faddishly semi-popular Pentax made 110 format single lens reflex interchangeable lens camera,with autowinder and electronic flash options. In the mid-1990's, Minolta pretty much lost its ass on the APS or Advanced Photo System format which they invested very,very heavily into,despite the fact that consumer digital cameras were just around the corner. My wife has a nice Minolta Advantix APS-format film SLR. Nevermind that the APS film format and all its cameras died on the vine because nobody wanted to buy into the all-new format and its at-first scarce photofinishing options due to the multi-format APS aspect ratio choices and the rarity of photofinishing machines that could handle the new film cartridges/archive holders.Even with the beautiful engineering and multi-format selections the handsome and stylish Minolta APS Vectis SLR cameras died out quickly. Sometimes formats do not last long. APS lasted what? Six years from the format's inception to its discontinuation? Something like that? The Disc format is now also dead. Kodak's Polaroid-like formats and cameras....also dead.

35FF uses a different capture size and a different range of focal lengths than medium format. A moderate wideangle lens on 6x6 is a 65mm lens,which subjectively feels somewhat like a 35mm lens feels when shot on 35FF;on 6x6 a 65mm lens is a semi-wideangle lens,and it's always,always, going to be a 65mm lens, and it will not "do deep depth of field" in the same way that a 35mm lens on 35FF camera can "do deep depth of field" shots. The LARGER the FORMAT one uses, the more your camera tends to have a focus band that drops off rapidly behind the point of sharpest focus. For street and PJ work, the 4x5 inch Speed Graphic's format meant it was hard to bridge near and far focus unless small f/stops were used and powerful flashbulbs were used to get to those smallish f/stops,so when the smaller 120 rollfilm cameras got good, most people doing social photography moved to cameras using 120 rollfilm,like the Rolleiflex camera. When film stocks got better, the smaller capture of the 35mm full frame Leicas,Contaxes,and then later Nikons FINALLY became acceptable,and there was a greater acceptance of 35mm camera for reporting and social uses,as well as sports photography.

35mm full frame capture has been a workable,viable format for many uses from the late 1930's until today. 35FF represents a nice format size,with a lot of potential for ultra-wideangle lenses, shallow DOF in wideangle compositions with high-speed lenses, deep DOF in wideangle compositions when stopped down, and relatively flexible background control from 50mm to 200mm using f/stops from f/2.8 to f/11. 35FF is a small format,compared to 6x6 or 6x9 or 4x5, but it can do a lot. MOST ALL of the world's 35mm lenses are designed to work on 35FF cameras.

My first APS-C format camera came into my life in February of 2001,when I bought a Nikon D1. Since then, I've owned several more Nikons and Fujis and one Canon, all APS-C sensored cameras. The biggest difference between 35FF and APS-C is that with 35FF, I have a full set of lenses that were designed and optimized for one format,and one "real-world". With APS-C I have a lot of lenses pinch-hitting in roles they were never designed for. There's a reason the 100 and 105mm lenses were designed. There's a reason the normal wideangles go 20-24-28-35, and a reason why 50mm,85,105,135,180,200,300,and 400mm designs were built; because they work very,very well on 35FF capture cameras in the real world. Using 35mm film-era lenses on cameras with cropped-down sensors is a bit different than merely multiplying a focal length by 1.54 or 1.6x and saying, "Oh, this is my new equivalent lens."

********Part Two-Some Simple Examples of DOF Differences Between APS-C and 35FF Capture Format Cameras**********
I looked around the web to find one,single article that would demonstrate that cropped-sensored d-slr's actually are cameras that represent a different format than the older 24x36mm or 35FF format. Well, I found an article that has some very easy-to-understand charts and a graph and some plain-English explanatory points about how depth of field differs between different capture formats. While an APS-C camera and a 35FF camera might look similar,and can use the same lenses and flashes and accessories, often times the images that come out of the two cameras will exhibit somewhat different looks, to in some cases VERY,very different looks. Aesthetics and intent take more than casual study. Equivalent angles of view do not in any way mean identical images. Far,far from it.
http://photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/

Let's closely examine the third of the colored Depth of Field tables (the lavender colored table). The third table describes DOF behavior using a 1.6x crop sensored Canon d-slr at a focus distance close to hyperfocal distance, with a lens focal length of 31.25mm which will give a 46 degree diagonal angle of view--the same angle of view as a 50mm lens used on a 35FF camera like an EOS 5D or a Nikon F5. So many proponents of cropped-sensored cameras claim that all one needs to do is to figure out what focal length on their cropped-sensor camera will yield the same angle of view as a full frame camera would get, and that everything is peachy keen,and that anybody who complains ought to shut up,a la Bill O'Reilly. Some people even admit that ,"They can't see the DOF issue as being significant." Well, it is significant,provided you have the equipment and the knowledge and the photographic education to understand some very fundamental lenswork concepts. But then, not everybody has shot on three or four film formats, and not everybody is aware of how 6x7 and 6x6 offer significantly different lens choices and DOF possibilities than 35FF offers, and that the difference between 35FF and APS-C is actually a pretty substantial difference. The difference is of about the same magnitude as the difference between 6x6 and 35FF,in my experience.

The EOS 10D's lens is set to f/8,with a 31.25mm focal length setting, the depth of field for this cropped-sensor camera is from 2.85 meters near point, to 20 meters far focus, for a depth of field band of 17.15 meters, or 2.85 times more DOF than a 50mm lens on Full Frame. With the 50mm lens on a Full Frame Body, an f/8 lens aperure and the 50mm lens focused near its hyperfocal distance,10.6 meters, the picture will have a depth of field with near focus from 3.4 meters, but extending back to only 9.4 meters, for a depth of field band of 6.0 meters.

So,let's recap: Using an APS-C Canon using a 31.25mm lens set to f/8,focused at near hyperfocal distance, we get depth of field from 2.85 meters to 20.0 meters (a DOF band depth of 17.15 Meters.) With a Full Frame body and a 50mm lens,set to f/8 and focused near its hyperfocal distance,we get depth of field from 3.4 meters to 9.4 meters (a DOF band depth of 6.0 Meters). Same angular field of view between the APS-C body and the 35FF body,right? Yes,right. But a tremendously DIFFERENT depth of field and image rendering.

Using a 1.6x cropped sensor camera, the hyperfocal distance of a lens is 1.6x closer than with that same exact lens deployed on a 35FF body. Again,re-stated slightly differently,the smaller capture area of APS-C shifts the hyperfocal distance of a given LENS 1.6 times CLOSER than when shooting that same LENS on a 35FF capture medium,either film or sensor.

As Atkins says in explaining this third chart "Between about 0.2m and 3m the 10D shows about 1.6-1.7x the DOF of 35mm film. At very close distances the ratio goes up, and as the distance approaches the hyperfocal distance for a 31.25mm lens at f8 on a 10D (6.6m) the ratio rapidly rises - this is because the DOF behind the subject in the 10D image is rapidly moving towards infinity."

If you go and read this Bob Atkins article on depth of field, and really take the time to understand it, you'll find out why I think depth of field control issues and background control issues are so problematic on APS-C cameras,especially as lens focal lengths dip down into the under-60mm range. Take very careful note of how the difference in depth of field goes from roughly a steady 1.6x to 1.7x greater with an APS-C camera compared with 35FF, to as much as 2.85x greater depth of field when the focus ring is set to something as simple as 6.6 meters at f/8 with a zoom setting of 31.25mm...the depth of field band goes waaaay out to hell and beyond on an APS-C camera. However with a 35FF format camera, the depth of field band is six meters, or roughly 18 feet total...but the cropped-sensor APS-C camera yields a DOF band that is 17.15 meters or roughly 53 feet deep! The practical,real-world implications of dropping sensor size below 35mm and down to APS-C are pretty clear once you start looking at the focal lengths and the actual optics involved. Unless you've actually seen how OUT of focus you can render a background and still create a true wide-angle composition from a distance of less than 15 feet on 35FF, you can hardly appreciate what the small format of APS-C brings to the table,which is inherently DEEP depth of field,readily and easily. Too much depth of field sometimes. On APS-C you hit hyperfocal focus distance that's about as far as you can spit,and then your fancy camera and costly 12-24mm zoom lens has been turned into almost the equivalent of the 110 format. APS-C and a wide lens yields so much depth of field that you feel like a member of the f/64 Group (look it up if you must). And, with APS-C your studio backgrounds will all tend to be just a hair too much in-focus if you're not incredibly vigilant. In-studio work in front of paper and muslin bckgrounds is one area where APS-C cameras fare badly in many situations.

If you cannot understand the lavender colored chart found at http://photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/ in real-world,practical terms, you need to re-read it,look it,and strive to understand that the 46 degree diagonal angle of view covered by an APS-C camera with a 30mm f/1.4 Sigma lens and by a 35FF camera using a 50mm f/1.4 lens will produce significantly different images under many circumstances. Note that all smaller film formats achieve hyperfocal depth of field earlier,at closer ranges. The problem with APS-C is two-fold; you either zoom the lens short to get a full figure person in, or you move the camera farther back than you'd normally stand using a 35FF camera,so as to compensate for the narrowed angle of view the sensor sees when using your 35,50,85,105,or 135mm lenses; either way, you'll have deeper DOF with an APS-C camera than with a 35FF camera with the same picture angle of view. The smallest commercially successful film format, the Disc format, was designed specifically to give the deepest possible focus,with the closest possible hyperfocal distance. How? By making the smallest capture format film camera ever sold in quantity. Optics at work. Small format. Small,short lenses to cover it. Deep depth of field even at modest aperture like f/4.5. No need for focusing. Ever. Once an optical system's capture format gets very small, the NEED, the necessity for critical focusing largely goes away,and a simple "Set it to 1 meter and forget it" type of intrinsically DEEP depth of field is created by virture of 1) a tiny capture size and 2) a short focal length lens.

On a continum, APS-C is much more on the side of the DEEP depth of field formats that have existed over the decades, while 6x6,6x7, and 6x9 rollfilm cameras represent the most common "Shallow depth of field" formats that have been popular to any real extent over the last few decades. As the British say, "Horses for courses." As in,different horses for different courses. I wouldn't expect a plow horse to win a stakes race,nor a Kentucky Derby runner to be able to help pull like a plow horse in the lower 40 acres.

When you shoot with an APS-C format camera using its very short wide-angle lenses,you will be shooting at close to hyperfocal focus distance at even moderate distances,thus making it almost impossible to create a wide-angle picture with significant foreground/background separation. The APS-C format's smaller capture size,shorter focal lengths, and increased shooting distances plays havoc with the principles of foreground/background relationship and subject isolation.But,by using a larger camera format and its correspondingly longer "wide angle of view" lens,it's possible to show a human figure full-frame,with a wide angle of picture view,from close range, and to throw the background OUT of focus. And that is the major difference between large,medium,minature,and APS-C,and ultra-miniature format cameras; as formats get smaller, we need progressively shorter lenses. By the time the format has gotten as small as APS-C, the increased DOF is so profoundly more that we've moved into an entirely new type of imaging: APS-C brings with it deeper depth of field than 35FF,and loses the "balance" between shallow DOF and deep DOF choices that gave the 35FF format about 50 years' worth of good,solid service.

David Burnett has recently begun covering high-profile news events,like Washington, DC congressional hearings, the Olympics,and so on using a 4x5 Graphic. Have you seen the pictures? Do you see how different they LOOK,compared to what everybody else is shooting on 35mm or smaller? Big,big difference. Due to format size and lenses.
Science, not opinion. Go to the library and look at Life magazine from 1945,when the predominant format was 4x5 inch, not 35mm FF; those photos from 1945 have a look that's very decidedly different from "miniature format" photos made on 120 rollfilm or 35mm full frame film.

The facile idea that one can simply do some quick math and "convert" lenses from one format to another format without substantially altering the imaging characteristics does not hold water. The mistaken idea that "equivalent angle of view equals same picture" between 35FF and APS-C formats is patently wrong. Sure,you get the same angle of VIEW--but the pictures are very,very different. Even though you may be getting the same angle of view, when you use an APS-C sensor camera, each focal length's behavior changes compared to 35FF, because the capture format is differently-sized. Remember-the APS-C format brings the hyperfocal distance 1.6x closer than with 35FF, and remember that APS-C brings roughly 1.6x more DOF than 35FF at many focusing ranges with the same angular view as 35FF--BUT,and this is the big but, as the APS-C camera's focusing distance approaches hyperfocal focus distance, the depth of field goes up to 2.85x MORE DOF as compared with 35FF. Shorter focal lengths have closer and closer hyperfocal distances.

Lenses that capture equivalent angular field of view between APS-C and 35FF capture can be calculated easily, but the actual in-field and in-studio DOF and image "Look" performance between these two formats is HUGE,particularly in the wider-angle segment of many of the best professional lenses many people own, especially down in the 18-70 mm zone. But,alas, the inherently deep DOF that APS-C brings with it means that on APS-C, using a 100mm lens at distances that allow you to capture a half-body standing adult figure,the smaller capture format combined with the longer-than-expected camera to subject distance imposed by the cropped-off sensor means that an APS-C camera renders disturbingly in-focus backgrounds even at wide-ish apertures like f/4 with a 105mm telephoto. The small capture size of APS-C means that even f/4 yields pretty darn good depth of field--because you have to stand so FAR AWAY with a 100mm lens on APS-C! And,as those of us who've studied Depth of Field know, increasing camera-to-subject DISTANCE is the easiest way to achieving deeper,greater depth of field! And, APS-C pushes you back farther and farther from your subjects....bringing more DOF in the process. Or, APS-C forces you to use shorter and shorter focal lengths, thus also bringing more depth of field. This endless catch-22 is what drives longtime shooters like me to long for a digital 35FF camera option for Nikon F-mount lenses. I know what APS-C can do for me, and I like how it works most of the time. But there is a large difference between how APS-C and 35FF cameras actually render scenes; at the wide-angle focal length APS-C lacks wide-enough lenses to get as wide an angle of view as a 35FF can with a short lens,and also APS-C lacks lenses with sufficiently wide maximum apertures like f/1.8 to as wide as
f/0.7 or f/0.8 to give the dreamy 35FF out of focus background,limited DOF look at wide angles of view. At the widest end of the focal length ranges avaialable today, APS-C cameras deliver so much DOF that it becomes difficult,or impossible to get subject isolatation through shallow depth of field due to the deeper DOF the physically-smaller format brings with it.

Addendum: After I wrote this article, a very fine photographer named Robert Whiteman posted a nice studio portrait he has made, in defense of his personal desire to have a 35FF option for Nikon F-mount lenses. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=22519042

Whiteman's portrait shows the wrinkles on the muslin more-clearly than I would like; he writes, "However, with the cropped CCD I still have more DOF than I'd like to have for 3/4 and full length shots.FF would have had this background more out of focus with the same aperture... The background is 6+ feet away and I have no more room and shouldn't need it. With FF I am able to shoot a longer focal length with the same aperture and achieve the desired results with no problem. It's the easiest fix." end quoted passage from Robert Whiteman. His portrait shot was made at 38mm, f/5.6, on a crop-sensored Fuji S2 Pro.

So there you have it. An actual person,Robert Whiteman, posting one of his own studio portraits, and then calmly and reasonably pointing out what many would consider a flaw in his final results, namely that of too-deep background depth of field. Full frame and APS-C are actual,real,and different formats. The formats are actually different, with very different behaviors due to real,important differences in capture size,lens length,and angles of view,depth of field,and shooting distances.

Did you know that camera to subject distance and only camera to subject distance changes perspective? That's a true statement. Many people confuse perspective with the very real phenomenon of apparent perspective distortion that is often encountered when using a very short focal length lens. Also, close shooting distances in combination with short focal lengths brings with it what's known as foreshortening effects; you know, when the bride holds her hand forward toward your crop-sensored d-slr set to 18mm and her hand suddenly looks as big as an NFL defensive tackle's hand (but with a pretty manicure!) and her head looks like it's roughly the size of a grapefruit. Changing the format changes the camera-to-subject distances we typically are forced into shooting from, and the pictorial results,and the behavior of lenses change with the format's size, in many important ways. If one does not understand the science underlying capture format size and the relationship of focal length to the capture format's dimensions,then one needs to read some old-fashioned books on photography and optics. Most newcomers have never read a single page on lenswork or optics.

Many people do not understand why perspective is changed only by changing the distance from the lens to the subject. Many people speak of "wide-angle perspective" and "telephoto perspective", but many people are unaware that that there is no such thing as either "wide-angle perspective" or " telephoto perspective",and that those two terms are a gross mis-use of the term "perspective". And yet, on the web, there are those who don't even understand perspective and how it is regulated,and yet they insist in engaging in debate about the need,or usefulness even, of 35FF digital capture format d-slrs. These folks,who usually seem to know and understand only around half of the basic principles of lenswork as it relates to focal length and capture size,often state that they like how APS-C is working and they see no need for anything larger. Fair point,as far as it goes. If you do not know from experience what you've given up,or what you could be getting, then ignorance is indeed bliss. Hey,don't get me wrong--at times, the hugely-increased depth of field an APS-C sensor camera give you is a godsend,it really is. With shorter focal length lenses, it's possible to get very,very "deep" depth of field effects with relatively high magnification lenses and to be able to render big,deep swaths of the real world into good,sharp focus. If you want deep DOF, the smaller the format, the better.

"Equivalent angle of view" is not the same thing as "same kind of picture". The format of one's camera affects the way lenses of the identical focal length will perform;the same focal length of a lens will perform VERY differently on differing film or sensor "format" sizes.Ladies and gentlemen, APS-C is a different format than APS-H,which is 1.3x, and APS-C is a significantly different FORMAT than is Full Frame,aka 35FF, aka 24x36mm.

Take a look at what I've been blogging about...f/8, focus approaching hyperfocal distance, ie, focus set to about 20 feet, your cropped-sensor 20D's wide angle zoom lens is set to 31.25mm,and it makes a picture that has 53 feet of acceptable depth of field. Your 35FF camera,also capturing a diagonal picture angle of 46 degrees, has an 18-foot deep depth of field band. In this normal,real-world example, matching the angle of view of an APS-C sensored camera to that of a 35FF camera,the APS-C camera makes a picture that gives you a depth of Field band that's 53 feet deep, whereas Full Frame has an 18-foot deep zone of DOF. Who here cannot mentally "see" the difference in photographic result that the smaller capture format imposes,even though the angle of view is identical? Once again,let me reiterate, 35FF and cropped-sensor capture represent actual,different FORMATS.

Scaling down the format from 24x36 or 35mm Full Frame (aka 35FF) to APS-C makes the hyperfocal distance of a lens 1.6x closer than when the same lens is used on the 35FF format camera. When using cropped-sensored cameras, we often find ourselves moving FARTHER away from our subjects. And hey kids, guess what--nothing increases depth of field faster and better than moving FARTHER away from your subject! Wooo-hoo! The smaller-formatted camera forces you to move farther away,thus rapidly increasing depth of field. DOF is pretty shallow at close ranges, but as one moves the focus distance towards infinity,DOF builds rapidly and more rapidly,and then as one approaches the hyperfocal distance, DOF extends by leaps and bounds behind the focus point,stretching all the way out to infinity. The shorter the focal length lens one uses, the closer that lens achieves focus at its hyperfocal distance. And the smaller the capture size, the CLOSER the hyperfocal distance becomes! Making one's capture format smaller results in a complex shift in lens performance characteristics. Please, if you're not familiar with what I'm talking about, consult the article referenced here, and take note of the final two points Atkins makes:
4. If you use the same lens on an EOS 10D and a 35mm film body, then shoot from different distances so that the view is the same, the 10D image will have 1.6x MORE DOF then the film image.
5. Close to the hyperfocal distance, the EOS 10D has much MORE than 1.6x the DOF of a 35mm film camera. The hyperfocal distance of the EOS 10D is 1.6x less than that of a 35mm film camera.

Is it any wonder that I'm disturbed by how many overly IN-focus backgrounds I see these days with the proliferation of cropped-sensor cameras? I constantly see seamless paper rolls, muslin,and location backgrounds that are are competing for attention with the foreground subjects on many full-body or multiple-person photographs. Why are we seeing so,so many photos with very deep DOF these days? Because, as I've been writing about, the difference in depth of field between the very popular APS-C format camera and a 35FF format cameras, is HUGE, under a relatively large number of frequently-encountered,real-world shooting conditions. Typically,you're going to see from 1.6x more to 1.9x more to as much as 2.85x MORE depth of field with the same angular field of view coverage,at many "real-world" shooting distances when you shoot a cropped-sensor APS-C camera and not a 35FF format camera.

Perusal of the depth of field tables at http://photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/
will show that: 1)at close-range focusing distances the 1.6x Canons 10D-20D-30D will have 1.9x more DOF than 35FF. At "intermediate" focusing distances (which Atkins describes as 'not macro,not close to HFD'), the cropped-sensor Canon has 1.7x more depth of field relative to Full Frame. And as detailed above, at a focus distance close to the hyperfocal distance, the cropped-sensor Canons will show 2.85 times MORE depth of field,relative to Full Frame. Yes, the number is correct: 2.85 times more depth of field. That's almost three times more in-focus depth,in feet!

One really simple bit of proof that the difference between Full Frame and APS-C is actually a FORMAT difference manifests itself when you note that using an APS-C sensored camera brings each lens's hyperfocal distance roughly 1.6x times CLOSER than if using the same lens on a 35FF format camera. Yes,you read that right--using an APS-C camera shifts the hyperfocal distance of a lens 1.6x CLOSER than if one were using that same focal lenght lens on a 35FF format camera. Also,under real-world situations, APS-C brings with it from 1.9x more, to 1.6x more, to 1.7x more, to as much as 2.85 times MORE depth of field than what one would get if shooting on the entirely different full frame FORMAT capture size, while capturing the same angular view. The APS-C sensor brings with it a double-whammy if one wishes to limit or tone down background focus,especially at moderate distances or at shorter focal lengths. The smaller capture area "tends to pull everything into better focus." Take note,as focusing distances increase, APS-C picks up additional DOF at a truly astonishing rate; do not be persuaded otherwise by deliberately or innocently misleading examples of DOF on APS-C at close ranges like 6 feet...take a look at how much DOF APS-C renders at distances like 3 meters, 4 meters,5 meters, and so on.

Atkins has written an excellent article that attempts to illuminate and to cut through a lot of the total bullshit about depth of field that you'll hear and read on the web. His article allows those who do not understand the difference between cropped-sensor and 35FF capture to gain some real information on just how DIFFERENTLY lens focal lengths behave on different format cameras. What I am trying to show is that 35 Full Frame is actually a capture FORMAT. A format. In caps! Just like 120 rollfilm shooting 6x4.5 cm is a format. And 120 or 220 rollfilm shooting 6x6 is a format. And how the Pentax 6x7 represents a particular FORMAT. Just as 6x9 cm is a format. And 6x17 cm is a format. And how "4x5" is a format. There are real,actual,proven,well-known DIFFERENCES in the way cameras and lenses perform on different formats, but most newcomers have zero personal,real experience with anything other than APS-C and so they talk about stuff they don't understand from real experience,parroting a lot of internet myths,thus confusing the subject and muddying the waters for those striving to understand why "some people" want 35FF in digital slr bodies. The newbies often cannot seem to undertstand that moving to a teensy format can have REAL, and LARGE impacts on the pictures that can be made.

When one uses a small format camera like APS-C, lenses behave very differently than when shooting on a larger format camera. When switching from a full frame camera to a 1.5x crop or 1.6x crop camera, if all you compare is the "equivalent" angle of view you are going to be shocked when you make some images using the two different sized formats and look at the pictorial results. Just go to http://photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/ and scroll down and look at the three different colored DOF and focal length/format tables. Compare the 6x9 cm FORMAT with its 125mm lens and its 46 degree angle of view,and look at the total depth of field band depth in the three charts. Then look at the depth of field of 35mm and 10D when both are at 46 degree angle of view equivalence. Compare the 6x9 cm, the 10D, and the 24x36mm Full frame or "35mm" FORMATS,and you can see that depth of field varies *tremendously* between these three formats.

So many people have come into d-slr photography without experience in using say, a 120 rollfilm camera with a 75 or 80mm "normal lens" with its large negatives and rather shallow depth of field tendencies.I know a couple people who have some of the absolute BEST cameras and the absolute best lenses made, but who have never fired a single frame of 35mm film, but who nevertheless, have gone on to become very, very "into photography". I'm not trying to be elitist, but throughout photography's history, there has been a trend toward smaller and smaller film formats and many newcomers who argue that cropped-sensor cameras are "equal to" larger-sensored cameras really don't know what they are talking about. Smaller formats bring with them deeper depth of field tendencies. The actual "look" of images is format-dependent,and there's a different "look" to using a 150mm lens on 4x5 inch sheet film, and one hell of a different "look" to a 150mm lens on a DX-sensored Nikon. I know. I like the look of my Fujinon-W 150mm f/5.6 lens on 4x5 sheet film; on my 4x5, the 150mm
http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/mid-rang.htm

gives a nice,ever-so-slightly-wider than normal view. On a 1.5x d-slr, my 75-150 Series E zoom set to 150mm is quite a narrow-angle telephoto focal length. Let me say it again: 4x5,6x9 cm rollfilm,6x6, 6x4.5, 24 x 36mm, 125 square, 110,APS-C, APS-H,and 4/3 are all different formats. And the way lenses perform on these different formats is in no way "equal" or "equivalent" if all one does is try to get the same angle of view in a simple millimeter-for-millimeter equivalency of angle of view. Most newbies do the simple math and assume that equivalent angle of view equals "the same pictures",which is not true at all,not by a long shot. It's much more complicated than simply multiplying by 1.6x and "converting" focal lengths...the equivalence in angle of view does not square with the realities I've seen in 34 years of shooting pictures using formats as large as 4x5 inch to as tiny as 110.

I have owned a Bronica 120 rollfilm camera system for over 15 years,and I have a 65mm lens, an 80mm lens, and a 150mm lens for it. AND,and this is the kicker, it uses 6x6 and 645 backs,as well as 35mm film backs. I bought this multi-format Bronica system for its flexibility with 120 rollfilm. I have shot both 6x6 and 645 film thru the same body and lenses, and guess what--the cropped-down 645 format is actually noticeably different with the 65,80,and 150mm lenses than when shooting in the larger capture size of 120 square AKA 6x6. I've shot,and owned several 150mm lenses....and on different formats, 150mm behaves like a slightly-wider-than normal on 4x5, a nice medium tele on 6x6, a slightly-longer telephoto on 6x4.5, and on 35mm a 150mm is a slightly long medium telephoto, and on a cropped-sensored camera a 150mm lens gives a nice,tight angle of view. I think my experience on the Bronica system qualifies me to state unequivocally that a cropped-sensor d-slr is a camera that shoots in a different format than a 35FF camera. The difference is not simply in angle of view--the differences are much,much more fundamental. Cropped-sensored APS-C cameras capture their images in a different format than 35FF cameras do. We need to understand that different capture sizes have ALWAYS been considered to be different FORMATS. The rampant boosterism of the DX and APS-C crowd does not change the fact that the 35FF format is a different format,and has a different set of capbilities than other formats do. Those who tell you how to multiply focal lengths by 1.54x or 1.6x to get "equivalent pictures" with an APS-C camera really do not know what they are talking about in most cases;often, their arguments are simplistic,and based on something like having used ONE format for two years....they've often never shot anything larger than 35FF,and so they tend to be very partial to their pet format,and very sensitive to what they perceive as criticisms of the APS-C format's inherent tendency toward deep depth of field.

There's no need to be defensive about APS-C or "DX Format" as Nikon calls its 1.53x camera line....but there is a need to understand the truth behind different formats and how lenses of identical focal length perform VERY differently depending on how large the capture medium behind the lens actually is. The fact that Nikon,Pentax,Fuji,Sigma,and Olympus all make only cropped-sensored cameras has many users of those brands with their panties all in a bunch, constantly trying to tell experienced shooters that there's "no need" for a sensor larger than APS-C or 4/3. But,uh, Canon seems to have two cameras that capture to the 35FF format,and they are being used by many serious workers who really know,from their own actual experience, how making the capture format significantly smaller than 35FF significantly changes the way we can make pictures.
-30-

ADDITIONAL READING:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtm

http://www.cybercollege.com/m/mb_tvp011.htm
This one is for those who've never studied much about lenswork. Good page! A second,more primer-like http://www.cybercollege.com/m/mb_tvp012.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml
I discovered this article after I wrote the main blog entry;this article from 2003 covers the myth of the "crop factor",and explains,lo and behold, that cropped-sensored d-slr's represent a different format of camera than 35mm full frame! Australian landscape photographer Nick Rains wrote a very,very,very good article explaining how thre is no such thing as a "magnification factor". His article is an absolute must-read for those looking to sort the bullshit from the facts.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
This on-line calculator has the BEST illustrations of ANY on-line DOF calculator. Great little drawings are rendered with each computation. Kudos!

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/perspective-subject-distance-focal-length.html An article entitled Working With Perspective,Subject Distance and Focal Length. A nice short article,with some nice illustrations.

Focal Length of a Camera Lens,http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/MiriamJanove.shtml

http://photo.net/equipment/medium-format/focal-length-conversion in an article entitled Equivalent Lens Focal Lengths For Different Film Sizes. This article deals with how different focal lengths are rendered differently, based on the capture format's physical size. This is the part of the science where many people are weak.

http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html
A page entitled simply Rui Salgueiro's field-of-view calculator,this allows you to input different values for many different FORMATS of cameras,such as 24x36mm (aka 35mm film, aka 35FF), 14x36mm (aka 135- or 35mm panorama), 6x6 (56x56mm), 645 (41.5x56mm), 6x7cm (55x70mm), APS-H (16.7x30.2mm), APS-C (16.7x25.0 mm), APS-P (10.0x30.2mm), 4x5 inch (101.6x127mm), 5x7 inch (127x177.8mm), or 8x10 inch (203.2x254mm). Plus, a custom-configurable field with user-selected width and length parameters.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-833.html

Full-Frame Digital: Some Day Nikon Will Have It

2007-03-04T09:19:00.000-08:00

The lure of the EOS 5D full frame digital SLR is pretty great for many "serious" Nikon shooters. I can't stop thinking about the camera lately,myself. I read a post yesterday where one Evan E admitted he's thinking about the 5D. I've read posts from many Nikon users with large investments in Nikon glass,lamenting how much money it would/will/is going to cost them to make the switch to Canon. Many people can see several specific Canon lenses they want; the 24mm f/1.4,or the 35mm f/1.4,or the 50mm f/1.2,or 85mm f/1.2. Or the 135 f/2.Or the 300/4 IS. Or one of several Tilt AND Shift lenses that Canon makes. While I'm not particularly envious of any tilt /shift lenses (except the Nikkor 85mm macro) I do have a hankering for the Canon 24mm f/1.4 and the Canon 135mm f/2,and I must admit a modern 50mm f/1.2 autofocus lens would be something I've never owned. I've owned two 35mm f/1.4 Nikkors and I could see enjoying the 35/1.4 OR the 35mm f/2 Canon EF lenses. Canon's small,light 35/2 actually looks like an okay lens for outdoor snaps and I've owned three 35mm f/2 Nikkors over 25 years,so the small size and light weight would be appreciated. I actually LIKE a 35mm lens on 35FF; I love the semi-wide angle of view,and the large background object size that a 35mm lens gives. It's a nice look, that of a fast 35mm lens shot on 35mm film. My first 35mm f/1.4 was a pre-Ai Nikkor model with the 1973-era styling that I bought in 1985. I lament the fact that Nikon doesn't make ANY high-speed wide angle lenses these days.

Currently Nikon digital shooters can not make the kind of shallow depth of field pictures than Canon users can by using a 24mm f/1.4 wideangle lens on a full-frame d-slr body. The Nikon lens system simply has _nothing_ that can approach a 24mm lens of f/1.4 aperture,since Nikon has only 1.53x or DX format cameras, and has no 24mm lens faster than f/2.8. Combining the 35FF to APS-C difference of 1.53x and a DOF differential of at LEAST 1 and 1/3 stops, and Nikon comes up woefully behind at 24mm. Canon's 24mm f/1.4 lens coming in at two whole f/stops faster than f/2.8, is a huge difference in light-gathering power for the Canon lens/camera combo. Canon also "owns" Nikon with its 35mm f/1.4 L-series lens,and the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 lenses, at least if one's goal is the widest aperture on the market at each of those three focal lengths,and with the difference in DOF between APS-C or DX and 35FF, the Canon system does have the low-low-low light categories sewn up, as well as offering the shallowest DOF, or the highest shutter speeds, or the most subject/background isolation potential in basically, four prime lens lengths: 24,35,50,and 85mm. Say all you want, but the Nikon system has no 24/1.4, no 35/1.4, no 50/1.2,no 85/1.2. And no 35mm-style FULL Frame format digital cameras to maximize the shallow DOF, subject isolation/ smooth OOF background blur look that so many people photographers want to be able to exploit.

Once Nikon offers a Full Frame d-slr choice,there will be a huge shift in the attitude of Nikon users who so valiantly try to justify the crop-body-only offerings Nikon currently has on the market. Right now, there's a tremendous number of Nikon-using posters who are spending a lot of time attempting to justify their own equipment choices,and spending a LOT of effort trying to convince other people that there's absolutely "no need for Full Frame". This handful of mostly amateur enthusiasts maintain that everything that FF can do,DX can do,which is not true by a loooong shot. While those few DX-boosters make up only a minority,they are a very loud, vocal minority. Full frame or 24x36mm sensor size is an entirely different "format" than is APS-H which is roughly 1.3x, and Full Frame is a different "format" than APS-C or 1.5x or 1.6x crop.

Pretty soon, Nikon will have FF. And the tune will change. Oh,yes, it will change. Pretty soon an entire subset of loudmouthed DX boosters will be forced to admit that,hey,this FF thing has advantages after all. What I want FF for is the shallower DOF and I want to re-establish a USEFUL set of prime lenses that function as they are supposed to function. That is to say Nikon makes excellent 20,24,28,35,45mm,50mm,60mm,85mm,105mm,135mm,180mm,200mm,and 300mm and 400mm lenses. I own all those lenses. And I'd like 'em back. As full-field lenses, with shallower DOF. And better High ISO shooting capability. And a larger viewfinder. And a large, 12 megapixel or so capture size.

The people who could make the best use of Full Frame are actually people and event shooters; the crop-sensored d-slr's simply bring too MUCH depth of field with them,and they make your studio or camera room too SMALL, too short. It's simply ridiculous to see how many people are trying to do portraiture/model photography using short focal lengths on 1.5x Nikons or 1.6x Canons--the damned backgrounds are all wayyyyyyyy too much in focus. I can see every wrinkle in seamless rolls, I can see creases in muslin backdrops, I can see street signs and billboards in street scenes...all over, there's this Deep Depth of Field APS-C type of image,ruining all sorts of people photos. The crop-sensored d-slr's force most people to drop way too short in focal length in-studio and also on-location,and depth of field control is problematic on APS-C sensored cameras due to the inherently DEEP depth of field the smaller sensor always brings with it. APS-C is simply too small of a format to do "the best" people photography with in the studios/location conditions most people actually shoot in. Those who are shooting modeling work and portraiture need to take a good look at their backgrounds, and be honest about it; using a 31,32,33,34,35,40,43 mm focal length to get a full-body shot in-studio yields images that look second-rate; the backdrops are too in-focus, and limbs are being distorted by the too-CLOSE camera positions forced upon shooters whose cropped-off sensors force the use of short focal lengths under almost all close-range indoor shooting conditions. If you cannot understand the nuances relating to format size/focal length/perspective/ shooting distances, then you're not truly qualified to judge how the film format-focal length-shooting distance relationship actually works in the REAL world.

If you've shot medium format, you probably understand from actual,practical experience how a "sub-miniature" format like APS-C affects the look of the actual PICTURES you can make,given the confines of typical studios or camera rooms and the lenses available for the format. Many people have insufficient real-world experience with 120 rollfilm or 35mm FF or FF 35-mm style digital to evaluate how the larger capture formats differ from crop-frame d-slr shooting. Many DX-users are unaware of what a 14mm or 16mm wide-angle lens looks like on full frame; many are unaware that Nikon does not manufacture any high-speed wide angle lenses which allow the background to be thrown decidedly out of focus when shooting a DX format camera; the DX capture format is so physically small that lenses approriately scaled to the new format are simply NOT actually capable of making the types of image "looks" that a lot of people want to make,and which went away back in 2001 when we went to 1.5x cropped digital cameras.

I see a LOT of crop-frame portraiture/modeling work that looks unprofessional simply because there's too much depth of field inherent in the tiny APS-C-sized sensor captures, and people are forced to use SHORT focal lengths to compensate for the cropped-off sensors,and they are forced to use short focal lengths because to do a full-body shot indoors in many smaller to normal-sized studios, the lens focal length must be down in the 30-40mm range, and that is a very,very UGLY range of focal lengths for rendering faces and bodies. 30-40mm is wide-angle,so the background angle of view,behind the subject, is very w-i-d-e in acceptance, and the background appears small, far away, but in sharp focus! In much people photography,the APS-C format is sort of a lose-lose proposition in terms of working distance,angle of view, studio lengths,and the introduction of foreshortening effects due to short focal lengths and close camera-to-subject distances. Noses and limbs can "grow" to ugly dimensions whenever you are zoomed short enough to get a full head-to-toe composition of a person standing on a 9-foot wide seamless backdrop without showing the edges of that 9-foot wide roll of paper...your background is so much in-focus that even some of the better lighting practitioners are showing photos that have wayyyyyy too much in-focus,or too much distracting detail visible, on their muslins or papers. If we all had camera rooms that allowed 75-80 foot shooting distances, there'd be no problem with the crop-sensor 1.5x and 1.6x cameras. As it stands now, full frame or 120 rollfilm is the choice of the best people shooters, for some pretty obvious reasons to those with enough real-world experience in the "old way" of shooting.

There is a reason that 120 rollfilm and full frame digital cameras are STILL the tools of choice for at the upper ends of the quality scale of people photography. The crop-sensor formats 1.5x and 1.6x are simply NOT the best tools for people photography. I am old enought to remember what was called "half-frame" format, or 24x36mm cut in half...it was not a popular format,and it had two runs at it, the first with the Olympus-Pen half frame cameras,the last run at making it with the Yashica Samurai's two-model, half-frame line of the late 1980's. "Half frame" sucked. It died out,and the entire industry went back to Full Frame 35mm film, which is 24x36mm.

It might be another year before Nikon gets a FF camera on the market. An announcement of one "might" come tomorrow, or in a few days time at PMA 2007, perhaps on March 8. Who knows. I do NOT think that Nikon can continue to offer ONLY DX-sensored cameras and remain competitive in serious photography for much longer. I'm tempted to buy an EOS 5D FF simply because I want the 85-105-135-200-300 lens lineup to be wider in angle of coverage,and shallower in depth of field,and so I can get the kinds of pictures I had BEEN ABLE to make until I went to crop-sensor digital in 2001 with the D1,then the Fuji S1 Pro right after that. I really,really want a larger viewfinder image. I dug out my F3HP and my N90 the other day....good LORD, the finder in the N90 suits my eyeglasses!!!! I was awestruck,simply awestruck by how B-iiiiiii-gggg and expansive the viw thru the finder was. Slapping on the 17-35 zoom, I about crapped myself. I could actually SEE what the image looked like,even with that low-magnification of a lens on there.

The tunnel view is getting kind of old. Go,go,go and pick up your favorite 35mm SLR right now, and run your lenses thru it. Take five minutes,and pop on a few of your favorite lenses. Just take a LOOK, with your very own eyes, at what you can see and frame using your 35mm film slr body. Oh,and if you don't have a full frame 35mm SLR body around the house,that's too bad,because you can't see what you're missing! I've used quite a few Nikkor lenses on my EOS 20D with an adapter,and the optical performance is pretty good! Specifically, the 45-P,60 Micro,85 1.4 AF-D, 105 DC, 135 DC,200/4 AiS,Sigma 180 EX Macro, 180 AF-D,300 f/4 AF-S, 300/2.8 AFS-II,and 400/3.5 all perform amazingly well on an 8.2 MP EOS sensor. I'd be willing to use my tele Nikkor lenses on an EOS 5D body for much of the people photography I want to do.

The trio of 85-105-135 all work very,very well on the EOS bodies. I'd dearly,dearly love to be able to have those three lenses back to full field capture on a NIKON body. I'm tired of waiting for a FF Nikon digital,and so I'm very,very tempted to buy myself a 5D this spring, just to be able to get back to full field shooting with those three lenses alone. But I am gonna' wait until PMA 2007 is over to see if Nikon's got anything else it's holding in the pipeline before re-evaluating my next move. I'm tired of the D2x being my best camera body choice...I need something that does better at higher ISO's and in lower, uglier lighting conditions,and I want a larger,better viewfinder image too.

Another look at the 50-150mm Lens

2007-03-02T12:29:00.000-08:00

I'd like to say,"Thanks for the comments,people!" I've recently begun to get comments here and there from folks who are reading my blog, and I'd like to take the time to thank each and every one of you who have posted a comment to my blog. I appreciate hearing from those who have read what I have to say, and I try to let people have their say without a lot of refutation on my part.

Recently I got a second,excellent and well thought-out,comment from Anonymous vis a vis my feelings about Nikon's missing lenses. I guess I misunderstood the comment Anonymous left the first time about the differences he sees between a 50-150mm zoom lens and a 70-200mm zoom lens. Anonymous suggests that it's nitpicking to differentiate between a 50-150 and a 70-200mm zoom lens; I beg to differ. There's a substantial difference between 50 millimeters and 70 millimeters when that focal length is multiplied by 1.55. The twenty millimeter difference is actually quite a large difference, and I suspect that's why Sigma has introduced its new 50-150mm f/2.8 HSM lens for crop-frame d-slrs.

An article entitled,"Nikkors Need a New Nidus: Let's can the eclectic lens lineup and do a clean restart" appears on Thom Hogan's web site at http://www.bythom.com/lensrefresh.htm. I think it's worth going there and reading what Hogan thinks are problem areas for the current Nikkor lens lineup. In his article Hogan says Nikon needs to design and offer Nikon DX users,and this is a quote: "50-150mm f/2.8 VR AF-S DX.The DX equivalent to the old telephoto standard, but with a big [sic] more reach. Plus it's smaller and lighter than the film equivalent. Note that Nikon will probably get this lens wrong, and make it a 35-135mm f/2.8 or 50-135mm f/2.8."

So,apparently, I'm not alone in thinking that a 50-150mm f/2.8 lens is not that wrong to want for my DX-bodied Nikon cameras. I would also disagree strongly that a 35-135 f/2.8 would be 'getting it wrong'--for MY own use, a 35-135mm would be even BETTER, since what I want is a lens that offers the most focal length flexibility in one lens tube,for sports/action. Making the lens shortish,like 35mm to start,would make it MORE useful,not less. I could sacrifice the range from 135mm to 150mm easily,since there's little difference between 135mm and 150, but there's a world of difference between 35mm and 50mm. Hogan's article also suggests that Nikon needs a 100-300 f/4 AF-S VR DX lens. I own a Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX HSM,and it has a LOT of focusing problems....I got it used,and maybe that's why I got such a good deal on it. I find the autofocus performance of the 100-300 rather poor--it's unreliable,focus-wise. It hunts wayyyy too often, and back-focuses a lot too. Frankly, Sigma's HSM protocol does NOT impress me on either their 100-300 f/4 or their 180 f/3.5 EX Macro which are my two Sigma lenses. A Nikkor-branded 100-300mm f/4 AF-S lens would no doubt focus much more reliably than the hunt-prone Sigma HSM lenses do.

A lens that I think Nikon ought to build is something along the lines of the Olympus 35-100mm f/2,seen and described here http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/sys_lens_35_100mm.asp
This is a $2,499 lens using a 77mm filter and weighing 3.64 pounds, with 21 elements, 1 Super ED element, 4 ED elements, focus hold buttons, and styling reminiscent of the Nikkor 200mm f/2 AF-S VR-G. The Oly 35-100mm f/2 is a modern,sexy,well-designed lens,with the rounded,waterproof focus hold buttons out near the front of the barrel...just like the very newest pro Nikkors! The big thing here is the f/2 aperture...not f/2.8, but f/2. And just over three and a half pound weight. I know this is a 4/3 lens, but this lens could cover a small, APS-C sized sensor and still be in the same,exact specification range,filter-wise and weight wise. This is a lens many people would BUY and LOVE TO USE. Nikon has DX wide angles, but NO professional DX-optimized teles or DX-optimized professional tele-zoom lenses.

The problem with the 70-200 on 1.5x for me is that,in many sports situations like long jump, finish line photos,triple jump or high jump,baseball from 1st baseline or 3rd, basketball,volleyball,etc the 70-200 is simply too LONG at 70mm to get the kind of shots I want, and there's really no way to back up and get farther away. While the 200mm end of the zoom is fine for distant shots, as athletes approach the camera position, it's nice to be able to zoom back....unfortunately, at 70mm x 1.55x,well, you've got the angle of view of 108.5mm using a 1.55x factor for Nikon. With a 50mm lens, the shortest equivalent angle of view is 77.5mm. QUITE a difference between that and 108.5mm,really.

I think there's a reason the 70-200mm 2.8 lens has totally supplanted the 80-200mm f/2.8 lens, and that is simply that 80mm is too LONG to begin at....70mm is only 10 millimeters shorter than 80mm, and yet, the 70-200 has become the defacto standard for professional f/2.8 and for professional f/4 lenses like the new 70-200 f/4 L IS lens from Canon. The difference beetween 50mm and 70mm is twenty millimeters. Not surprisingly, Sigma has now created the world's first 70mm macro lens. Sigma has also created the world's first 50-150mm f/2.8 autofocus lens....I think because there is a real,significant difference in the utility of a 50-150 lens as opposed to a 70-200 lens on a DX-sensored body. With today's higher-MP cameras, the 1.5x FOV crop is no longer an advantage--we've got plenty of resolution and file size with the D2x to crop and throw away HALF of a frame,and it's STILL got much more info than a 2.7 MP or 4.1 MP file ever had.

I owned the 50-135mm f/3.5 AiS Zoom~Nikkor for a number of years,and found that it was a MUCH handier general purpose zoom lens on 1.5x than my 80-200 f/2.8 AF zoom, or my 80-200 f/4 (old) Zoom-Nikkor, and it was also much handier than my 70-200 VR as a general-purpose, all-in-one lens for walkabout use. When I got the 70-200VR, I kept the 50-135 f/3.5 manual focus, and loaned the old one-ring 80-200mm 2.8 to a UK photographer who had all of his equipment stolen and the 80-200 f/4 went to my sister in law. Then,somehow, my 50-135/3.5 went missing. I have NO IDEA what the hell happened to it,it's just simply "gone". What I like about the 50mm focal length is that it can be used to make what I call wide-angle compositions,as well as telephoto compositions. It's actually wide enough to give a sense of place,and to put things into context,where 70mm has absolutely NO wide-angle nature whatsoever--all compositions with a 70mm are short telephoto type compositions. I personally think that with the increased MP count of good new cameras, that a shorter,wider-angle zoom lens will allow better utility from a single camera body,without the need to always be reaching for the second camera and lens combo. In many situations, there is simply not enough time to reach for a second camera,bring it up,frame,and shoot, but there IS time to zoom back,using the same zoom lens as you began with. Hence, my desire for a 50-150mm lens, and not yet another 70-200mm lens for "serious" use. [Update: In October 2007,my 50-135 was found,unharmed.]

I think a similar argument,that of great flexibility and utility, can be made for the existence of the 100-300mm f/4 Sigma HSM,and the 120-300 2.8 Sigma EX; the 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 zooms are simply NOT long enough for those who want 300mm worth of reach in ONE LENS,for FAST deployment on sports or action. I would LOVE to see a NIKKOR 100-300mm zoom, since the Sigma 100-300 f/4 HSM has so many focusing problems and is really NOT up to professional optical quality on the D2x. There are always tradeoffs; a 300mm f/2.8 prime lens is sharp,focuses great,and has superb optical performance, but when athletes come anywhere close to you, the lens is useless. Enter the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8....I'm starting to see this lens more and more at larger outdoor sporting events. While it might not be as good as a Canon or Nikon 300/2.8, it has the focal length flexibility and the range that many sports/action shooters want to have all in ONE LENS BARREL,for fast deployment.Zooming flexibility can be worth a LOT.

A case in point about lens designs and the range that sports/action shooters want; Nikon has made a really stupid lens design decision with its fairly new 200-400mm AF-S VR G lens. WHO,exactly, was this thing designed for? It's a $5,099 lens. It's a 200mm f/4. It's a 250mm f/4. It's a 300mm f/4. It's a 350mm f/4. And it's a 400mm f/4. Good Lord Almighty, people are paying five THOUSAND dollars for a 200mm f/4 lens? And five thousand dollars for a 300mm f/4 lens? Shit, that is simply insanely specialized. A 200mm f/4 that weighs 7.2 pounds with its protective glass installed, or 6.9 pounds without the protective glass? http://www.adorama.com/NK200400AFSU.html I hate to be so blunt, but I see the 200-300 part of the range at a mere f/4 and have to wonder to myself WHY this lens was ever made. It seems to me to offer too slow of an aperture at both 200 and 300mm to cost $5,099. If you want a 200mm f/4 lens, it ought to weigh about one pound,and you CAN buy a 200mm f/2.8 lens from Canon for $659,and it weighs 26.8 ounces. http://www.adorama.com/CA20028AFU.html while the 300mm f/4 Canon Image Stabilizer weighs 2.6 pounds and costs $1,149 http://www.adorama.com/CA3004ISU.html. I can see wanting a 200mm f/2.8 prime that weighs under two pounds,and I can see a 300mm f/4 stabilized lens that costs $1,149 and weighs 2.6 pounds. But I can NOT see the need for a 200-300-400 f/4 lens that costs over five grand, is too slow to use a teleconverter on,and which needs to be stopped down smaller than f/4 to get the BEST sharpness. if you want a lens that WEIGHS WAYYYYYYY too much over 85% of its focal length range, the 200-400 f/4 AF-S VR-G is your lens....24 elements, 17 groups, and weighs a ton.

A 50-150mm f/2.8 lens priced at $1100 from Nikon would be very,very welcome. It would actually re-create the 70-200 in terms of FOV. And people could afford it,and it would have broad utility. I ask you, who exactly is the 200-400 VR targeted at,and why is it such a slooooow seller? I do not think it sells poorly because of price alone, but because it's somebody's pet project,and it's "neat".

I think Nikon has some real,significant gaps in its lens lineup,and a significant problem with its sensor size offerings. Pretty soon we will see if Nikon brings out a Full Frame d-slr camera; rumors are now flying that Nikon might produce a d-slr with a 1.1 or 1.13x fied of view factor. Short of full frame admittedly, but larger than 1.55x that they now have. In the meantime, we'll all have to remain content to carry two d-slr's,one on a monopod,and one around our neck. The lack of a 50-150mm f/2.8 lens for field sports costs us an extra $6,000, just to be able to cover closer action.

I can see why Nikon is not too worried about its current lack of a 50-150mm f/2.8 pro-grade lens--Nikon has lost the majority of the PJ/sports/event market to Canon.

Imaging Resource gets 1D Mk III Prototype,dPreview Snubbed

2007-02-26T19:53:00.000-08:00

Well, the Imaging Resource web site got a prototype Canon EOS 1D Mark III for testing and hands-on evaluation, and the job they're doing with it is pretty good. Good sample photos, nice comments on what's improved, and especially how Canon has made significant CHANGES to their long-criticised,almost idiotic 1-series control and menu system. Canon has brought some very nice NIKON touches to the 1D Mark III body, like an AF ON button,right where the Nikons have the AF ON button. And Canon's brought a pseudo-Nikon-like joystick to the 1D series. Canon has actually brought some of their prosumer body control concepts and ethos to the 1D series after premiering the Nikon-like multi-controller button aka "the nipple" first on the 20D/30D model line, apparently finally admitting that the 1D series's "press-spin-select-adjust-oops-I-screwed up-press-spin-select-DAMNIT!!! " pseudo-logic needed some serious control revisions. Canon said they looked at re-designing the EOS 1D Mark III camera from the ground up,and it's about time Canon started emulating Nikon's control concepts, like the AF ON button and more-logical control functions and ways of adjusting a camera.

Still, it's apparent from the hands on preview that Canon hasn't YET quite figured out how to make an AF point navigation system with the brilliance of the Nikon D2-series with its fool-proof 4-way controller + AF mode selector switch. Canon has added the 20D/30D mini-rocker switch,aka "the nipple" to the 1-series for the first time, but it just isn't the same thing as Nikon's 4-way controller switch. Sorry Canon, nice try, but your dinky little button is too small still...well, maybe by one or two more generations down the road,perhaps Canon will finally be able to achieve parity with Nikon's camera control concepts and functionality on a multi-direction input thumb-operated pad system, because while imitation might be the sincerest form of flattery, Canon is still missing another entire SWITCH to help control this 45-point focusing system. Canon ought not to try and innovate, but to copy Nikon's idea very much more closely and slavishly. As in almost verbatim. You know, by adding the needed missing switch to control "how" the AF system will work. And while Canon hasn't YET gotten it quite right, they have added a dedicated AF ON button,RIGHT where a NIKON body has the same-named button. Forget that stupid star button shit Canon's been using with a Cfn 4 setting--it was in the wrong place for what it does,and the newly-added AF ON button is RIGHT where Nikon feels it should be,where the thumb has a natural placement,and where the thumb is in a position to work with good dexterity,especially important when covering a longer event where the thumb is going to be used for focus actuation for hundreds of shots. The star button's control is unnaturally far right as an AF ON button,completely counter to the thumb's natural placement when shooting with a horizontal mode camera;not surprisingly,Canon has located the new Nikon-style AF ON control right where Nikon puts it-- in the perfect location.

Now that Canon has ADDED a significant NIKON focusing control button, and ditched the old 1-series' interface quirkiness,by making it work more like a pro-sumer Canon, Canon has doubled the audience for the 1D Mark III;as I see it, they've made the 1-series EOS much more appealing to many Nikon users, and I think that's actually deliberate. But still,Canon's AF point selection point engineering solution seems just a bit cheesy. It's not 'quite' there yet. Nikon's still got a better concept and execution for user-supplied AF area selection and adjustment,since canon hasn't added the missing Focusing Mode/Pattern button this generation.Menus are fine, but big,easy-to-shift selector BUTTONS determining how the AF system can be customized on the fly is what the D2 series Nikons have,and Canon still lacks. But still, Canon's AUTO AF area selection might be just the ticket for pointing and following action with excellent camera performance with the camera picking the AF points,and lighting up and showing you which AF points it's using. Time will tell, but I think Canon may well have super-duper all-auto AF performance,with the camera being smarter than many a shooter. Canon's got a lot of faith and experience in AUTO-everything camera design,with the photographer more of an End User,if you know what I mean.

Allowing a modern,flagship-level Canon to select the AF points to use might work better than some people want to think. I think Canon has a reputation for AUTO-everything shooting that's based on sound engineering principles being applied across the entire camera. I think maybe Canon engineers strive to design the best fully-automated routines that they can design,so that the camera functions well with a sort of "End User/hack/newbie" running the camera. Maybe that's my prejudice, but I think Canon,and Minolta, long assumed that better automation equals better shots on a strict percentage basis, and that throwing numbers at the problem is where the solution is to be found.

It seems as is dPreview owner Phil Askey might have some reason to feel a bit slighted,as do other reviewers and site owners who got absolutely NO prior notice of the camera's unveiling some five days ago now,and of course who got NO cameras to see early. As it stands now, dPreview is not bringing the world much more information than the bare bones press release Canon issued, and you've got to look hard to find the link to the 63-page Canon white paper detailing this soon-to-be-shipping new pro body. The sensor layout has been improved,and the fill factor and the microlens array have both been improved,so this new sensor really should deliver pretty good amounts of detail for a 10 MP sensor. It seems to be a significantly better-performing sensor than you might expect at first thought.

Stop by Imaging Resource and see quite a few images sized at 3,888 x 2,592 pixels. Photos range from 3.8 to a little over 7 megabytes in size, depending on how much fine detail the shots contain.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DMK3/E1DMK3A.HTM

I have downloaded quite a few of these images, many made with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 EF-II lens, which I own. As long as there's nothing resembling contre jour lighting,or the sun anywhere NEAR the front element, this cheap $79 50mm lens yields a sharp but rather boring-looking image,with harsh bokeh in many situations. The 100mm f/2.8 EF Macro lens is also sharp,quite sharp, and was used on many of the Imaging Resource indoor test target photos, and is a very good lens at indoor distances, such as those the Imaging Resource use for their test scenes. I mention the lens issue here simply because the 50 1.8 EF-II makes really "boring-looking" images,and the outdoor test photographs convey a boring,dull,uninspiring look,and the pictures really lack much "impression". I want to point out to unsuspecting viewers that those street-type scenes shot with the 50mm EF-II lens look weird largely because of the awful,awful impression this lens delivers at the ranges and apertures most of those storefront-type scenes were shot at. It's fashionable to call cheap 50mm lenses "Excellent Lenses",and while Nikon's 50mm 1.8 AF is a good lens, it's not great, but it's WORLDS better than say the two 50mm 1.8 Series E Nikon 50's I've owned,and this Canon 50 1.8 EF-II lens is right down near the bootm,even below the 30-year-old 50 1.8 Series E lens design.

The Canon 50 1.8 EF-II, the modern one, is a $79 lens of poor ghost and flare resistance; it is a TERRIBLE optical design when shot towards any bright light,and when shot directly toward the sun, the 50 1.8 EF-II has the weakest ghost and flare resistance of _ANY_ normal lens I have owned. Ever. Ever. It is sadly,and incredulously awful against the light! The coatings,and the optical design are very primitive, which is a simply inexcusably basic problem. This lens has a chunky, five-sided diaphragm opening, and complete,total,utter inability to shoot toward not just the sun, but toward almost any type of bright light source; a bright reflector in front of it, or a building reflecting the bright sky anywhere near the front of the lens, you name it,this design cannot handle it. Bokeh-wise it's crappy, and the aperture looks like a big pentagonal-shaped dinosaur turd. Neither the lens's anti-reflection coatings nor optical formula can cope with the sun without MASSIVE image ghosts and flares. The shots are fricking USELESS unless the lens is shaded,deeply, from ALL bright stray light. Say to yourself, "compendium lens hood, and an assistant with a black card to throw a shadow ONTO the front element." Never take this lens to the beach,unless you like green-headed people. I own a Russian 58mm f/2 Auto-Cosmogon in m42 thread mount that's actually a tad bit BETTER against the light. Since the I-R test shooters didn't shoot toward the sun, the pictures look serviceable, but there's a soul-less, dull, boring feeling that comes from this lens design. This Canon 50 has really LAME image characteristics. It's hard to overstate how poor a performer this lens is, with the worst ghosting and flare I've ever seen in a modern prime lens. As if that's not bad enough, it has crummy bokeh,and ugly OOF specular highlight rendering due to its primitive five-bladed diaphragm.

Oh, guess what....Canon has a brand-NEW,professional caliber 50mm f/1.2 EF L-series lens design....hey, whadda' ya know! It costs $1,499 and is brand new for 2006-2007.http://www.adorama.com/CA5012AF.html Canon also has a $309 50mm f/1.4 lens. I mention the f/1.4 model and f/1.2 models because I would NEVER recommend the 50 1.8 EF-II lens to anybody. It's a 4.6 ounce plastic toy-like lens that can easily ruin photos in only moderately challenging light,and when the light is sweet and angled,as in the afternoon or early morning, the f/1.8 EF-II model is just,well,like a toy lens.

I'm going into such length here about the 50 shots because,unless you're a bokeh freak,and sort of a lens junkie, you've probably,thank your lucky stars, not owned a lens like the Canon 50mm 1.8 EF-II. It has adequate sharpness. It renders fine detail quite well at f/8,which is where a lot of people will test it. The problem is that at moderately larger apertures,like f/3.2 at closer to mid-distances, this lens has butt-ugly out of focus areas, both in front of and behind the point of sharpest focus. In scenes where there is a slightly out of focus background, this particular Canon 50mm 1.8 design renders the OOF portions with a very,very negative "vibe" that many people cannot put their finger on. There's a reason huge, pentagonal-shaped diapragm openings have been abandoned, and more-round aperture blades have been moved into lenses since the 1970's; why the Canon 50 1.8 EF-II has this 1950's-shaped aperture opening, and why it has such poor flare and ghost resistance, is beyond me. The lens, while "sharp"enough,is fine on test charts, but it has absolutely no business being used on 3-D objects,especially if conditions will see large-ish apertures and out of focus areas included in the composition to any significant degree. If the lens is not stopped down enough to render MOST of the scene's area entirely in good,sharp focus, this piece of crap design makes your pictures look,well,not good enough for the modern era. I'm not making this up--this 50 is one of the lowest-quality prime lenses I've ever owned. Why does a modern,multicoated,single focal length lens 50mm have almost NO resistance to ghosting? WHY is the lens so,so poor when shot against the light? Price is no excuse; this problem was handled many,many decades ago,and yet this thing ghost like a SOB. Why? It's a simple 50mm lens design that performs well below 1950's standards,and it's 2007 now.

I've gone to the trouble of writing this so that you'll be able to appreciate the Imaging Resources street scenes which were made with this ultra-lightweight,economy-designed 50mm f/1.8 EF-II lens. Shooting anything except test targets ought to be made illegal with this lens. This lens renders scenes in such an ugly way, and often ehibits hashy,downright ugly bokeh. Knowing that the 1D Mark III street scene samples were shot with this unfortunate lens design makes me VERY,very aware of how awesome the sensor on the 1D Mark III actually is.

Bottom line: I've seen JPEG images this camera makes under studio lighting,and the images are very,very clean and smooth,and reveal detail right down to what I consider the be the limits of the drecky 50/1.8,and the 100/2.8 EF Macro shots look great. This camera is delivering EXCELLENT resolution across a wide range of ISO settings. This camera is a nice imager. Going by the Imaging Resource comparison photos, I'd say the Mark 3 has about a full stop cleaner-looking images at the top two settings than the Mark 2 model did! Yeah, ISO 6400 on the new camera looks as clean,vibrant,and detailed as 3200 on the Mark 2, and 3200 on the new camera looks as clean,vibrant,and detailed as 1600 did on the Mark 2. Which is an amazing improvement which will be welcomed by many shooters. 1600 on the new camera looks pretty DAMNED good for 1600.

[ Addendum,March 1,2007: A few days after I wrote this, I found this thread about an EOS 350D owner adapting a Yashica-Contax mount Zeiss 50mm f/1.7 Planar manual focus lens for use on his EOS body using a Kindai adapter. See Peter Spiro's comment about the awful bokeh of the 50 1.8 EF-II at this thread http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1031&message=22252201&changemode=1 ]

My Wish For A Nikon D3h: Reasonable MP Count, FF

2007-02-25T15:58:00.000-08:00

It seems to me,and to other people who follow the current trends in d-slr photography that the Nikon D2Hs suffers from a poor sensor design that has problems with excessive infrared and near-infrared, meaning that synthetic fabrics (like sports uniforms) are often rendered incorrectly in color, and that flash exposures (which have plenty of near-infrared) are not the strengths of the Nikon-designed, Nikon-made LBCAST sensor in the D2Hs. The D2hs camera's megapixel count and image quality is too low to compete with Canon's two 8.2MP 1D series iterations, and now Canon has announced a 10.1 MP 1D Mark III model, thus pretty much effectively neutering the D2Hs as a legitimate top contender in this category.

What I would like to see Nikon do in its D3h camera is to go to a larger sensor, like a full frame sensor, not a 1.5x sensor. That would allow Nikon to get better High ISO performance by going to larger pixels, and would also solve one real problem for the sports/news/event/generalist shooters, which is that the 1.5x sensor makes many perfectly good lenses a hell of a lot LESS useful than they were designed to be. The 28-70 AF-S, now a pretty bland 42-105 sub-normal-to-short tele lens would go from being a 40-ounce piece of crap on 1.5x, to a useful lens offering wide-angle to short telephoto views on Full Frame. The argument that the DX sensor allows for smaller and lighter lenses really has not panned out. There ARE NO DX telephoto lenses from Nikon--we're still using Full Frame image circle capable lenses that weigh as much as 7 to 14 pounds on many outdoor sports assignments,since there are *no* DX teles. The 17-55 DX lens is not really a lightweight lens. The DX argument's promise of smaller and lighter lenses is a straw man argument, a moot point, a red herring, a bunch of B.S. when applied to telephoto and telephoto zoom lenses--their image circles are already small,and there's no physical way to design or make a smaller,or lighter DX-optimized telephoto,so the "lighter" part of the DX lens advantage is,truly, a non-issue,a moot point. No weigh savings or size reduction can really be gained on any of the telephoto lenses by reducing their already very small image circles,so a DX-sized 300mm f/2.8 lens is still gonna be, well, the same size and weight as one designed to cover a 24x36mm film frame. Moving from a 1.5x sensor to a larger-sensored camera would also bring improved performance at higher ISO's,leading to higher image quality under marginal lighting conditions. Better High-ISO image quality is the area where Nikon needs to improve their camera performance in the D2 line's successor models.

Widening the angle of view of the 200mm f/2 and the 300/2.8 lenses would make them MORE-useful for sports like volleyball,basketball,baseball,softball,track and field,and American football. I do not actually buy into the argument that sports shooters always like,or want, the 1.5x factor. In my own personal experience shooting sports assignments over the last two years, I think the 1.5x GREATLY hurts the 85mm lens, the 105mm lens, and the 300mm lens lengths. The 300mm lens on 1.5x gains some depth of field per aperture value, which is a plus/minus kind of thing. The REAL,persistent problem is that using a 300mm lens means that athletes that approach too closely are reduced to a tight close-up....arms and legs are...GONE, cropped off...the opposing athletes in the competition are...GONE,and OUT OF THE PICTURE, cropped off too. The idea that PJ/sports/event people all want or like the 1.5x FOV reduction assumes that the most impotant problem to solve is being situated too FAR FROM the action, but that is not the problem,usually. The problem is that your lens is too LONG for the distances actually encountered, and you always find yourself needing shorter and shorter and shorter focal lengths to get the scene captured, to show what's going on within some type of context.

By the time one gets to fairly short focal length settings on a 1.5x camera, pretty much everything is in focus,and there's NO WAY to get subject/background isolation due to the short focal lengths. Also, the wide angle of view extends not just TO the main subject's distance, but that wide angle of view also extends BEHIND the subject, out to the farthest distance in the scene; the problem is two-fold; the subject is shown with a ton of crap in the background, and it's almost impossible to control the crap shown in the backdrop by throwing it out of focus because the inherent DOF at short focal lengths is so great.

The cropping-off of what each lens projects affects the way the actual,current lens models and focal lengths render their images. The "pictures" just don't come out the same way using a cropped-sensor camera and trying to stand farther and farther away from subjects at the 50,85,105,and 135,etc lengths; your studio is now wayyyyyy too short, and now,using the wider end of your short zooms, 9-foot wide seamles rolls and all backdrops are suddently, well, too narrow! The backdrops (paper,muslin,canvas,rooms,sets,gyms,offices,whatever) and backgrounds are now all pretty much IN-FOCUS in most all of your studio-type setups, thanks to that teeny 1.5x capture area and 33mm shooting lengths...and so on.

While birders and nature photographers may say they like and want the 1.5x factor and see it as a positive, in sports and indoor event photography,I disagree,and feel that it's actually a major drawback,given the actual pool of lenses ON THE MARKET,and what those lenses were/are designed to do; the 300/2.8 is a very,very expensive lens,and the 300/4 is not cheap either. We have reached the resolution point now where we can crop out and throw away as much as HALF of a frame to make a publishable sports shot with a good 8-12 MP capture to start with. When an athlete or a person gets too CLOSE to the camera, the longer, very costly,high-performance AF lenses like the 300/2.8 are simply too damned cropped-off on 1.5x bodies to make pictures that you can actually use in many situations, both indoors and outdoors. There are few lenses which can track focus as fast and well as the 200/2 VR and 300/2.8 Nikkor lenses; they have almost the ultimate in optical quality available,and the images they make can easily,easily stand up to terrific cropping at the computer if the file is clean and well-shot (adequate shutter speed, good focus), and when those lenses are rendered too narrow-angle because of the 1.5x factor of your body, WHICH lenses do you switch to to replace them? Well, most people have NO substitute for their 300/2.8; it is their big investment lens, the one with the best rez, the sharpest wide-open, the best flare resistance,and the best autofocus performance in all ways. Stepping down to the 70-200 2.8 VR from the 300/2.8 is a huge step down in focus performance and against the light performance.

No, for birders and outdoor photographers who can never get close enough to their subjects, 1.5x seems like a good deal. But for PJ/sports/event photography, cropping each and every lens's angle of view down seriously makes the camera a LOT LESS useful than a camera with a 1.3x or 1.0 aka Full Frame angle of view. 99 percent of the Nikkor lens line was designed for 24x36mm photography, also commonly known as Full Frame or 35 Full Frame or 135 format or 35FF. You KNOW what I mean. You know, with a big,huge viewfinder image,coming off a full-sized reflex mirror, onto a nice modern viewfinder screen,and then sent to your eye with a top-quality optical glass pentaprism that gives the best possible viewfinder image for the easiest,fastest framing and the best composing under tough conditions. Indoors,at events, the lighting is often kind of dark....a bigger,better viewfinder image is always a PLUS....a 1.5x cropped-down tunnel-like viewfinder image is not a plus.

Megapixels and resolution are overrated by many people,I think. The D3h crowd really wants to be able to have a pro Nikon body that has better High ISO performance,more so than high resolution. From my own experience with the EOS 20D, which delivers pretty doggone good and printable High ISO images, it seems that with the right image processing in-camera, the 8.2 MP CMOS sensor of the 20D actually delivers HIGHER RESOLUTION than the 12.2 megapixel CMOS sensor in the D2x when both are used at higher ISO values. Statistics can be misleading,and I feel that MOST D2x owners were a bit mislead if they happened to read certain reviews of the D2x,or looked at noise graphs of the D2x and thought that it'd be a good camera at medium and elevated ISO settings. But the painful truth is that LBCAST and CMOS-sensored Nikons have been three models in number,and all of them have been poorly-received cameras for sports/event/PJ shooters who want state of the art performance for their $3,500 or $4995. So, I'm not really interested in a sports camera that has an extremely high megapixel count--what I want is High ISO performance with good color saturation and good detail, not a bunch of shadow noise, screwed up colors on synthetic fabrics, and weird colors on things shot with flash. Oh, and I want a good in-camera JPEG engine.

The easiest way for Nikon to get its act together in the PJ/sports/event/generalist professional camera segment would be to boost sensor size away from APS-C and toward APS-H (1.3x) or all the way to 35 full frame sensor size. Nikon ought to keep the megapixel counts reasonable, like 8 to 10 MP, but stuff in as physically LARGE a sensor as they can fit in there. I'd be very,very happy if the D3h had a 10.2 MP FULL FRAME sensor that shot at 8 fps down to 1 fps, and which also offered four different down-sized image capture sizes. I can imagine that if Nikon engineers really worked at it, they could see their way clear to getting their LBCAST technology to the point where they could double the pixel count from 4.1 MP to 8.2 MP by simply scaling the sensor size all the way up to full frame size.

Right now, Nikon needs to also keep in mind that the D200 was a big success because it finally offered serious enthusiasts some of the features that had previously been offered only in the D1 and D2-series bodies. Offering customers MUCH more than they have a right to expect,feature-wise, is why the Nikon D200 is so well-regarded a camera, and why Canon's EOS 30D is viewed as basically a lukewarm re-hash of the 20D with not much new in the way of feature improvements except incremental ISO settings and a few new picture style modes. Nikon can simply NOT skate by by making a D3h that's a re-hash of the already inadequate D2Hs design. No, Nikon needs to put on its thinking cap. Nikon users want a camera that can compete on ISO performance indoors,under artifical light,and which can render colored synthetic fabrics the RIGHT colors, without the need for a 77mm Canon hot mirror filter over each lens, and Nikon users want a camera that can make flash exposures without weird off-color casts due to the excess IR and near-IR sensitivity.

I could care less who makes the sensor for the Nikon D3h....it could be a JFET LBCAST sensor,or a CMOS sensor, or it could be a CCD sensor....the kind of sensor isn't important, it's the sensor performance.The D3h has simply GOT TO DELIVER EXCELLENT image quality at ISO 1600,and it had better be damned good at 3200 as well. Since I feel that the 85mm f/1.4 and 105mm DC and 300mm focal lengths are rendered much LESS useful on 1.5x than when shot natively on 35FF format cameras, my personal hope is that Nikon decides that the D3h, the PJ/sports/event/generalist camera goes Full Frame, with huge pixels, and stays right around 10 megapixels or so. If the D3h sensor is full-frame, even as little as 8.2 MP would be fine by me,since it'd give better High ISO performance. Right now, if one looks at how poor the D2x is with 12.2 megapixels at ISO 640, I think that even as few as 8.2 MP spread over a FF sensor would blow the DOORS off of the D2x resolution-wise at ISO 640,and ISO 800,and 1600,and 3200.

We'll see what Nikon does.Canon has just announced the EOS 1D Mark III,and the pre-production camera samples from the Imaging Resource web site show that the High ISO performance of the upcoming Canon makes what Nikon's "pro bodies" can do look sub-par. I do not expect that Nikon will make the D3h PJ/sports/event/generalist d-slr with a 35FF sized sensor, but I really,really hope they do go 35FF. Couldn't they also have it switch to a High Speed Crop-type mode, with smaller capture size and a narrower capture angle? Seems like they could-they've done HSC in the D2x and D2Xs models. I really think that the 1.5x sensor's advantages have been vastly,vastly overrated by all the bird photographers, and that the real way to get Nikon truly back in USE and ON THE JOB at newspapers and magazines all around the world would be to make their PJ/sports/event/generalist camera a full frame D3h with maybe only 10.2 or 11 megapixel capture size. Throw in a cropped-down capture mode or two and four sizes of captures, and put a DECENT JPEG ENGINE in there, and bingo....a huge sales hit for people who know that cropping down the angle of view on all your best Nikkor lenses really isn't an advantage.

Canon vs. Nikon: Nikon's Low-And Mid-Level Success

2007-02-24T17:41:00.000-08:00

Yeah, the old Ford versus Chevy wars are back on, only this time it's Nikon versus Canon. Or is it Godzilla versus Mothra? Regardless of who's duking it out, or where they are duking it out, you can rest assured there's somebody keeping score of how the battle is going. That's what makes a fight interesting, watching the give and take,and keeping track of the score. Once the event has been decided, there's not much interesting to see. It's kind of anticlimactic. Unless of course, the event ends with a stirring comeback, or a thunderous knockout, the end game or final stages of a battle are often not all that interesting. And unfortunately for the loser, oftentimes he's unaware that he's soon going to end up down, on the canvas, the loser, knocked out and on his ass. Yeah, the battle can be going along,going along,going along, and then suddenly there will be a trendous swing in the momentum, and the battle can be over in a flash. Am I talking about Chevy and Ford here? Or am I talking about Canon and Nikon? A little bit of both.

Let me say, we recently bought some Ford stock. We think they're on the verge of a good,solid turnaround. But right now, Ford stock is very much almost worthless compared with where it has been in recent memory. American consumers have expressed a lot of unwillingness to buy Ford products. Ford last year announced they were killing off the long-standing Taurus line, and stopped Taurus production. They fired 30,000 plus good people. Toyota products outsold Ford products in the USA for the first time in 2006. And as recently as two weeks ago, Ford announced that it was going to be bringing the killed-off Taurus line BACK into production. WTF is up at Ford ??? I dunno exactly, but I think it'll climb from the eight dollar range to into the high twenties within two years or so. Why? Because it's Ford Motor Company, and because I think they have what it takes to stay the course,right the ship,and get things back in order. But not without some effort and some good decisions. Ford's made it big on the F150 pickup, as well as the heavier-duty pickup lines, and high gas consumption (low MPG) engines have long been something Ford buyers never worried about. American Ford buyers have not really minded the gas hogs Ford has been making...but now the market is demanding higher fuel economy. It's kind of like image sensor noise...it's gotten to the point that now, we can have high performance AND GOOD FUEL ECONOMY. But not in today's Fords. In two and three years' time, I think the Ford lineup will be re-tooled significantly and brought more in line with what people actually WANT to BUY, and not what FORD has been telling the American public it wants. People ain't buying into Ford any more. The market has changed. That bad fuel economy that was not a concern, has now become a concern. As a company Nikon is similar to Ford,in some ways.

I think Nikon is in a similar position as Ford now finds itself stuck in--an old and established company,with a good reputation, a wide range of products, and a good name that's understood to be a name with a long tradition behind it,and which symbolizes the CAMERA COMPANY mentality. Some of the other camera companies remind me more of consumer electronics companies. Not that that is a bad thing. Call the consumer electronics camera companies the new kids on the block. Interestingly, about a year ago Canon announced that it had plans to try and drive ALL of the "non-traditional camera companies" out of the camera business. WOW, what a ballsy move to announce such a business intent to all the world. Meaning, look out Sony and Samsung and Panasonic and all other newcomers to the camera market, we are Canon and we are planning on driving you and your consumer electronics newcomer butts right out of the c-a-m-e-r-a business. Simply an amazing declaration from Canon, that they want to drive non-traditional camera makers out of the camera business. Sublimely ballsy.

A lot of people in the next few weeks are going to be talking about what does or does not come out in 2007. There are going to be some new cameras arriving in stores in the next few months--confirmed new cameras will be the new Sigma SD-14, the new Fuji S5 Pro, and the new EOS 1D Mark III, and hopefully there will be a mid-2007 anouncement of a Nikon D3-series body. In terms of a segment that needs a shot in the arm, it's the Nikon PJ/sports/event/generalist pro camera; the D2Hs slot in Nikon's lineup has been a most disappointing seller, and it has not been a well-received camera. Many people who tried it felt that the sensor was the weak link. Great body, wonderful subsystems, but a weaker than expected sensor. The D2Hs suffers from too low of a megapixel count at 4.1 MP to compete well with Canon's doubled count 8.2 MP 1D Mark II-N. And now Canon has announced a Mark III variant in this category,with a 10.1 MP sensor capable of shooting at up to 10 frames per second. If one is keeping score, it looks like Canon is now two generations ahead of Nikon by some metrics, especially at the highest end of the market, where Canon has already built two professional-level Full Frame offerings to Nikon's zero offerings. A more Canon-like bias could be used to say that Canon is ahead by three generations over Nikon; two flagship full-frame models, the 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II models, AND a mid-priced Full Frame 5D model, the likes of any of the three which have never been offered by Nikon. Add in the EOS 1D Mark III,and some might say that Canon offers four solutions that Nikon has absolutely no counter-offers for. Nothing.

But let's not get bogged down in adding up the scoring that's taken place so far in this fight. The real fun in watching is the see-saw thrill of battle,not adding up the round by round score, right? A fight's not really fun to watch unless it's had some actual give and take. In a round from the last month's issue of Popular Photography & Imaging,the cover-story shootout article awarded the image quality nod to the Nikon D80 as the best of the five 10-megapixel d-slr's now being sold in the United States market. That endorsement alone, will probably allow Nikon to sell thousands and thousands more D80's to people who just go with whatever the big magazines and reviewers determine is "the best in class". And according to a pretty broad-based analysis and evaluation, in the 10 megapixel lower-level class, the Nikon D80 is the best overall imager. Score one for Nikon. (The Nikon D200 was not in the shootout, nor were the Canon EOS 20D or 30D models.)

In the mid-to serious enthusiast market, my feeling is that the Nikon D200 has outsold the EOS 30D by a very large margin. The D200 has a really nice feature set, with pretty good performance overall,especially considering the price. The D80 seems to actually be a little bit better camera than the other competing 10-MP models in its price class,and the D40 seems to be a pretty doggone good performer in what is now ostensibly calld the "hobby d-slr segment". It seems to me that the entire hobbyist end of the market is well-covered by a Nikon lineup that represents the best offerings Nikon has ever had in all of the segments.The D40-D50-D80-D200 span really is as good as Nikon has ever been able to come up with, and that span encompasses users with wide variety of different needs, and I think Nikon's doing quite well all the way from their entry-level models to their most-costly cameras in the non-professional lineup.

But in the higher end offerings of full frame professional, full frame advanced amateur, and PJ/sports/event/generalist d-slr models, Canon has the best products. Seriously. It doesn't bother me to say that the 1D Mark II-N is a better camera than the D2Hs, as say a "generalist d-slr",which is my category for the best all-round compromise camera that's capable across many disciplines, which offers rugged construction,and offers a WIDE WINDOW of reasonably easy and productive shooting across a wide range of disciplines, be it PJ, sports indoors, sports outdoors, event coverage,and well, "general assignments" of various types. Imaging Resource has been given a prototype 1D Mark III to test and evaluate,and has been given the authority to post pre-production samples from the camera. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DMK3/E1DMK3A.HTM

The good news to take away from the current state of affairs is that 1) Nikon's NEWEST PRODUCTS, like the D40, have incorporated more of the best Nikon has to offer,at ever lower and lower prices. I'd rather have a D40 than a D70, if offered either for the same price, the D40 is THAT much of an improvement in image quality and so much less of a pain in the ass to shoot with. 2) Nikon has started to realize it needs to offer better image quality and better image optimizations in JPEG mode right off the card. and 3) Nikon seems to be doing a fine job at the beginner,intermediate,and serious enthusiast segments of the market camera body-wise and 4) the very-newest Nikon lens designs are offering VERY good performance,at fair prices. As a consumer and mid-level camera body maker, Nikon is now, finally, doing pretty well with a product matrix that has some really neat cameras in it.

For the wedding photographers who cannot seem to get the Nikon D200 to shoot decent JPEGs, my advice is to quit bitching about the D200's image sensor, forget the D200, and buy yourself a D40 and see what a CONSUMER-ORIENTED JPEG engine will do for you....go back to an sRGB JPEG camera, like the D40, so it'll deliver the kind of straight out of camera JPEG images that you want,s o you can ship 1,000 or more images off to print without having to custom alter hardly any images at all. If 10 megapixels' worth of imager is not needed, and it is NOT for most wedding pictures, why not go for the best 6 MP d-slr on the market, the D40? Sending native sRGB JPEG files to an automated printing system, from a camera that offers highly saturated image processing with good shadow detail and nice highlight handling, is kind of what a lot of these high-volume photographers want. If one wants to spend almost NO TIME adjusting images at the computer, one needs to learn how to either adjust and custom tune the camera, or one needs to depend almost totally on the camera to make the right choices. Pejoratively characterizing the D200's out of camra JPEG's as "Nikon's color" is putting a lot of the blame on the camera, when some of the problem is prior experience with pretty much highly-processed SOOC images from cameras like the Fuji S2 or the Sony or Olympus higher-end P&S cameras, and so on. A lot of people actually want an "eye candy" type look to their images, and they want that look right off of the storage card. This is what a lot of the Straight Out of Camera JPEG shooters want, and it's what Nikon has done with D40 JPEG images.

My feeling is that the many,many,many newbies who've only recently joined the Nikon system will enjoy their D50's, D200's,D80's,and D40's and will stay with the Nikon system for quite some time, enjoying the many new consumer-priced zoom lenses and nifty flash systems that Nikon is now making. What I would ask though is for people who feel perfectly content with their D200,or D80,or D40 to not be so all-fired happy with the entire Nikon system as a whole, and that they stop to consider that right now, Nikon appears to be spending a lot more R&D and time and money and focus on low-end stuff,and not nearly as much money on high-end equipment. Nikon _is_ losing a lot of serious amateurs, a lot of small-time professionals, and a lot of photojournalist/event/wedding shooters to the Canon onslaught. I think Nikon has taken the attitude that, in the consumer realm, no matter what the price of the camera, the newest Nikon cameras will delight and startle and thrill their buyers, delivering MORE than they had anticipated. And that is the way to turn things around, one new customer at a time. So, if you're happy with your first or second Nikon d-slr, fine, that's great. But don't pretend that Nikon's doing just wonderfully in the professional/serious end of the market. And please, let's stop with all this talk about how nobody needs a "better camera". Who seriously thinks the Nikon D2Hs is a better PJ/sports/event/generalist d-slr than the 1D Mark II-N or the soon-to-be-here 1D Mark III?

While I think Nikon as a company has what it takes to stay the course, right the ship, and get things back in order at the beginner,mid-,and advanced amateur market segments, I am not sure at all that Nikon has what it takes to stop the migration of so many top-level Nikon shooters to the Canon system. If you're interested in watching, I think the arrival of the 1D Mark III is going to mark the beginning of yet another fairly substantial exodus of shooters who finally call it quits on the F-mount,abandoning either Nikon or Fuji or a Fuji-Nikon camera body mix, and making the switch to Canon and the new 1D Mark III. The less equipment you have, the easier it'll be to switch to Canon. And the less time you've been with Nikon, the easier it is to stay with them. It's a great time to get INTO either Canon or Nikon gear, it really is. It's a great time to be leaving Nikon for Canon. It's a great time to be interested in digital slr photography, since if you look around you can get almost anything you NEED. OR want. The next year is going to be very rough and stressful and disappointing for Nikon users at the top end of the market,and it's gonna' be great for the buyers of the newer, D40-D80-D200 class Nikon bodies.

Well,Canon Today Announced a D2Hs Killer

2007-02-21T21:36:00.000-08:00

Top Story Today:
http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20070221_1dmark3.html
Eight "official sample" JPEGs are available here for downloading.
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos1dm3/eos1dm3_sample-e.html

EOS 1D Mark III announced by Canon with the headline, "Twenty Years of the Canon EOS System Leads to This Moment: Canon Releases the EOS-1D Mark III."

As I wrote earlier,back in 2006, Canon HAS been working on a camera that offers expanded dynamic range,and the 1D Mark III will feature a highlight optimization tone curve option that will allow a wider range of highlights to be captured, as well as showing more gradation in the highlights. Check out the Mark III's amazing highlight retention capabilities at this URL
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DMK3/E1DMK3EXPOSURE_HTPMODE.HTM

Just a few of the specifications of the new pro Canon include a 1.3x FOV factor 10.1 megapixel CMOS sensor, capable of up to 10 frames per second, a 3 inch LCD monitor with Live View option, and a new 45-point AF system with 19 cross-sensitive AF sensor points and some fancy grouping and tracking options that sound sort of similar to what the D2X offers. According to Canon, the camera can shoot ,"110 Large JPEGs or 30 RAW files because it employs the new Dual DIGIC III image processor engine..." which sounds good for sports/action use where opportunities sometimes exist for rather lengthy sequences where the key is covering ongoing action,be it mundane action, or rare once-a-season action,or even once-in-a-lifetime action. There is also a new "silent mode",designed to greatly minimize shutter sounds, which would be very,very nice at times. There is also a new focus adjustment/calibration system for each lens you have in your kit, which sounds nice on paper,and might really be nice. Being allowed to assign your own,repeatable,adjustable user input into lens AF behavior and such might be very welcome,right? I think so.

What intrigues me the most however is Canon's statement that they have re-evaluated everything in this camera from the ground up,and have incorporated some better camera and lens control methodologies, and have worked on improving the function of the camera. Canon has also made some very Nikon-like design choices with the Mark III. The addition of a small rocker-type switch or button on the back of the camera, a-la Nikon is welcome, to me at least. I have my 20D set up to adjust my AF points NOT in the normal Canon way,using the big wheel,but with the small ricker switch,so that it's "sort of" Like the way my D1,D1h,and D2x have worked since 2001. Canon copying Nikon on the battery metering down to 1% increments, and shaving 8 ounces off the weight by switching to a modern Lithium Ion battery (like Nikon) is a big plus.

ISO Range is 100 to 3200, with extensions to ISO 50 and to what Canon describes as, "a highly usable 6400." Canon claims the new sensor offers 50 percent lower shadow noise than the Mark II-N's sensor. Contrast the top official ISO of 3200 with the D2X's top ISO of 800...this new Canon is designed for low light proficiency; the Mk III actually makes the specification for 3200, which is nice. Currently the lowest-noise Nikon at ISO 1600 is the D40 and it's a very usable,very good ISO 1600 in my experience,but the D40's images lose color saturation and noise up very BADLY at 3200.

DUAL image processors, with eight channels reading data out, an automated sensor and shutter curtain cleaning system at startup (user-cancellable with a mere tap of the shutter button at startup) with automatic dust mapping of sensor debris and specs being stored with the images files, so that post-shoot automatic dust-removal can be done by Canon's supplied Digital Photo Pro RAW developer. Self cleaning sensor, self-cleaning shutter blades, and automatic mapping and removal of sensor debris...sounds good.

Nikon had better have something very,very impressive to counter this new competitor in the sports/PJ/wedding/generalist professional camera category; the Nikon D2Hs seems somewhat lame in comparison to the current EOS 1D Mark II-N, and totally lame compared with the design parameters of the EOS-1D Mark III as detailed in today's official Canon press release. While my title calls the new 1D Mark II a D2Hs killer, I also think it might be the final nail in the coffin for the D2Xs Nikon--many,many shooters would gladly trade away the D2x's nominal two megapixels' worth of on-paper resolution advantage for vastly,vastly superior High ISO performance and,well,maybe even more detail and greater acuity. My feeling is that above ISO 640, the D2X does not allow you to capture and show much more detail than a good 6MP camera can show when shot at ISO 200...look closely at mid-ISO and High-ISO D2X series captures you've made with your D2X series body...I have....I'm NOT impressed with the D2X in terms of the fine detail captured at the mid or upper ISO ranges.

Addendum, Feb 25, 2007: well, there's now more info and an ISO 6400 sample image from the 1D Mark III at the Imaging Resource web site.http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DMK3/E1DMK3A.HTM Unfortunately for Nikon and Fuji, it looks as if the EOS 1D Mark III is EVERY BIT AS GOOD in the real world,as a pre-production camera, as it does on paper. This camera has so many features it's not even funny. The Mark III is going to be a hugely successful camera. Nikon's D3 series will have its work cut out for it. The D2Xs looks almost dead in the water to me.

Addendum: dPreview got "scooped" on the 1D Mark III by Imaging Resource web site, which as of today, Feb 25, 2007 has the best hands-on comments from their actual use of and examination of a 1D Mark III prototype camera. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DMK3/E1DMK3A.HTM

February 2007 Thoughts on D-SLR Cameras and Lenses

2007-02-19T22:16:00.000-08:00

Well, just wanted to get a new post out,much shorter and easier to read than the normal blog posts. I saw Nora Efron on Charlie Rose a while back,and she said that if it takes longer than about ten or fifteen minutes to write a blog post, then "you're not blogging, that's something else." Huh. Well, I dunno' what the definition of blogging is really--I think of these as little thought exercises. If I'd outline and proofread better,these things might be considered essays, or editorials, diatribes, or even articles. But hey, if you want articles, you buy a magazine,right? Well, on to my Miscellaneous February 2007 Ramblings!

*The little Nikon D40 is a reasonably capable,inexpensive d-slr. Its low-light AF assist lamp does a pretty good job,and the pop-up flash does a fine job of balancing flash and ambient lighting at LOW light levels. I shot some JPEGS at a wedding reception,using the pop-up flash in a room that had plenty of candles, small tungsten bulbs, and swirling lanterns that projected small beams of light around the room and was very dark...my wife's little D40 set on Program did a DAMNED fine job of producing straight out of camera JPEGS with the pop-up flash giving a nice what I call TTL-BL look,but in low light! I have since shot some family photos in my own home,where I have photographed for years using various flash units and cameras (Vivitar 285,Sunpak 622 Super,Nikon SB-28DX and SB 800 from least-used to most-used) and I have to say, the Nikon D40 and SB 600 (six hundred) are the BEST COMBO I HAVE EVER USED for indoor,family flash photography where the goal is consistently good and PLEASING exposures,shot after shot,with bounce flash in our white-painted, cathedral-ceilinged rooms (14-18 foot ceiling height in room-center). The in-camera JPEG processing,the exposure computation,and the reliability of the D40's light metering have made me very envious of the D40's flash and metering capabilities. The D2x sucks at flash in these SAME three rooms,at least in comparison to how the D40 computes the exposures with flash. The D2x is much more prone to WB shifts, and frame-to-frame exposure variations than the D40 is. The D40 plus SB 600 (six hundred) combo is a significantly easier-to-shoot camera than the D2x with SB 800 (eight hundred) is. The Nikon D40 is an easy to shoot little camera, with doggone good light metering, Auto ISO, and pretty good AF even in crappy lighting as long as the AF assist is on. And ALL of this positive shooting has been done with the 18-55 kit lens-no other lenses have been tested on my wife's D40. I have simply got to say this, the fellow who left the comment on my blog that the D40 is a "little shitbox" of a camera--Uh,dude,that's totally wrong. It's a significantly BETTER camera than I expected it to be,and it performs MUCH,much better than say a Fuji S2 or a D70 or a D2x,at least with flash exposures and with in-camera JPEG output. I think the D40 puts the D2X to shame with flash. Seriously.

I'll say this--all things considered,and I mean ALL things considered, I would RATHER have the the 6.1 Megapixel D40 sensor and image processing engine in my D2X than the 12.4 Megapixel Sony CMOS sensor my D2X is saddled with. Seriously. The type of pictures the D40 produced at an indoor basketball game this weekend would put my D2x to SHAME. At just ISO 500, the D2x demands NEFs, noise reduction on those NEFs,and careful post,and as you go toward higher ISO settings, I don't think the D2x image quality keeps up with the D40's IQ when both are shot at elevated ISO's. Of course, the D2X's offical top ISO is 800--anything higher is a Hi-setting which is not really an ISO equivalent.

**Canon's going to be updating the 5D this year I think, and I'm really interested in what that will do. PMA this year is going to be very,very,very interesting. I sense a huge,lemming-like mass of Nikon shooters are assembling near of high bluffs everywhere, prepared to rush headlong toward uncertainty after Canon's PMA announcements hit. Nikon today announced something like five new compact cameras, two weeks prior to PMA. Hmmm....

**I think people who compare the D200 to the EOS 30D typically feel that the D200 is a "better camera" than the EOS 30D. I do think it's interesting how MUCH of the "good stuff" Nikon put into the D200,such as the ability to meter with Ai and Ai-S lenses, the tricked out i-TTL flash control protocol, and the high-quality body and nice build for under $1699 at introduction (D200 prices have dropped lower now), but what I think the Canon 20D and 30D offer over the D200 is better High ISO performance. Rob Galbraith at http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-7891-8214-8216 wrote, "Of all the Canon and Nikon digital SLRs we've ever used, the 20D produces the cleanest, most printable RAW and JPEG files at the upper ISO settings. " end quote. Of ALL of the Canon and Nikon d-slr's the Rob Galbraith staff has used, the EOS 20D was the winner for the "cleanest, most printable RAW and JPEG files at the upper ISO settings." And, BTW, they've shot MOST ALL of the Canon and Nikon d-slr's there. For PJ use, or for ambient light basketball, Gabraith himself states unequivocally that the 20D is a vastly better camera for ambient light basketball than the D200 is. His opinion. I do not own a D200....I own a 20D though,and I shot an ambient light basketball game this weekend with the 20D,and was ASTOUNDED at the quality of the images at ISO 1600. Very,very pleased. Typically, I shoot basketball with portable flash units mounted on light stands about 60 feet from the hoops,and use Pocket Wizard flash triggering,shooting ONE or TWO frames per possession,using the D2x at ISO 400 or 500 and a Cusatom Curve that yields a Minus 1.3 to Minus 1.7 stop boost in "apparent" ISO speed or aperture or shutter speed, making my ISO 400 on the D2x work more like ISO 1000 or ISO 1250,which is "acceptable" for newspaper publication. But High 1 on the D2x without flash--fuggedabout it. In-print,in 4-color, D2x pictures shot at above ISO 800 look like shit, even in the newspaper. In black and white, they look a little bit better, but EOS 1D and 1D Mark II files from other guys I know look better. The D40 looks better, from what I've seen, and is Nikon's BEST ISO 1600 imager,overall.

**Nikon needs more VR and more AF-S focusing lenses. I do think that with a 1.5x crop camera, the 300mm f/2.8 lens has lost a tremendous amount of usefulness for sports like track and field and soccer and indoor basketball at the far end of the court. MOST of the arguments about the beauty of the 1.5x crop stem from people who are interested in photographing very distant things. However, if you have press credentials or are just there, on the sidelines where you want to be, a 300mm lens on a 1.5x camera is still too damned LONG for many,many shots. A 300mm lens is wayyyyyyyyy too frickin' long for baseball from the third base line or the first base dugout areas, where I like to shoot basebal froml. For track and field, most facilities are simply too crowded with athletes and officials,and the areas are simply too SMALL to use a 300mm lens with a 1.5x body--you risk having others get in between you and the action,since you're standing sooooooo far away that people don't really realize what you're shooting. The 200mm f/2 VR is a MUCH,much more-useful lens for track and field on a 1.5x Nikon body or for baseball than a 300mm lens is, with some exceptions; for javelin and discus and baseball outfield,300mm is actually not as useful as a 400mm lens on a 1.5x camera.

**The need for a 50-150mm f/2.8 zoom lens was recently disputed or questioned by somebody who left an anonymous comment which is published here in the blog. They also wondered why I advocate a 250mm lens or a 50-250mm FAST-aperture zoom lens. I do not care about the weight--it is the focal lengths that we actually NEED updated if Nikon is going to stay 1.5x FOV crop on all bodies. A 70-200 is simply TOO LONG for many events,forcing you into a 2-camera setup with a tele or zoom on a monopod and a second body with a much,much shorter lens around your neck....this is the way you have to shoot soccer, for example,or baseball, if you really,really want to cover things right. There's a need for a fast lens that goes down to 40 or 50 millimeters at the short end, which obviates the need for that Godd^%N#d 28-70 or 17-55 and the extra body weighing you down.....c'mon Nikon...get something NEW in a DX tele or a DX wide-to-telephoto zoom of professional capability. Sigma's 100-300 f/4 HSM EX is a lens I own....it's as close as I can get for daylight baseball and track and field, but the focusing and optics are not up to the D2X level....if it were a bit shorter, say a 50-200mm f/2.8, Sigma would really,really have something. Their 120-300 is,once again, simply TOO Damned LONG at the short end for sports shooting in indoor arenas,or at tracks, or on baseball diamonds,forcing that second camera/lens combo onto everybody. I still maintain that a 40-250 f/2.8 or something close to that,like a 50-250, is what's actually needed for on-field or in-gym sports shooting with a 1.5x body.

**Nikon's 200/2 VR is a G-series lens that costs $4,000. I own one. It's one of the best lenses I have ever shot. But I hate the G-series aperture system,with no aperture control on the lens...this prevents the lens from being used on a Canon d-slr body unless you rip the diaphragm out,and use it wide-open. This prevents it from being used on video cameras or cione cameras without extensive modification. Stripping off the aperture ring on a $4,000 lens to save $19 really,really pisses me off. Making the 105 VR Macro lens a G-series....talk about 'effin asinine....a macro lens that has no diaphragm control on the lens itself....shit....Nikon ought to realize that their 200/2 VR lens could and would be bought by Canon pros who want a lens of consummate optial quality and astoundingly beautiful bokeh--but the G-series castrated lenses are USELESS on anything but the MOST-modern Nikon bodies. I'm pissed that my 200/2 is useless on anything but a modern Nikon body...not adaptable to video with adapter, not adaptable to Canon with adapter, not adaptable to anything,all because they castrated the lens. Stupid fucking decisions seem to be a Nikon specialty these days. Nikon is throwing AWAY one of its MAIN strengths--the F-mount. The F-mount has featured a mechanical f/stop ring on EVERY lens made since 1959,until the cheap,piece of shit G-series appeared with the 70-300G--and having that aperture ring on the lenses is what makes F-mount lenses adaptable to video,cine,and Canon cameras, As well as to older Nikons like F2,F3, FM3a,etc,etc. Castrating a lens by removing its aperture control ring means the lens is USELESS on anything,except a new Nikon made within the last few years. Useless. if you want to charge people $4,000 for a lens, why not make it a migratable lens that has at least SOME potential for off-list use? Or is saving $19 a smart move on a $4,000 lens?

**Let's say I wish to use a G-series lens reversed,or on a bellows, or on a K-series extension tube or hooked up in any number of ways,like in an optical relay system or to a non-Nikon camera....a G-series lens used on a bellows,or reversed,or on any camera except the most-modern Nikons will be STUCK stopped all the way down to f/16 or f/22. Stuck at minimum aperture. Useless as teats on a boar for off-list use. Canon was first to ditch the aperture ring on lenses. Nikon following suit throws AWAY one of its biggest advantages--the ability to move the lens around to any F-mount accessory made since 1959,or to be used on a Canon d-slr,or on a video or cine camera. The G-series also forces you to take your trigger finger OFF the shutter release button to make aperture changes that you could otherwise make with your unused left hand manipulating the aperture ring. The G-series forces you to work in ONE way; conventional lenses allow you to work as you'd like to,with F/stop control ALWAYS WITH THE LENS, where it belongs, or, by adjusting using a control wheel on the body. The old system offered tremendous versatility and migration ability of lenses...the castrated G-series lenses are useful ONLY in a limited niche,and only on Nikon CAMERA bodies. They are USELESS with extension tubes, bellows,reversed,or in other so-called off-list uses. Eighteen months ago,I predicted that the D200 would meter with Ai and Ai-S lenses, and I urged Nikon to "leverage the F-mount". Not that they are listening to ME (of course they're not), but *leveraging* the F-mount means stopping this G-series shit,and taking a look at the big picture. Fuck, if you're gonna strip off the aperture control from the lenses, then where the hell are the CPU-equipped bellows units, extension rings, and other accessories? If Nikon continues to strip off the aperture rings to save $19 per lens,we might as well all shoot Canons, which have no aperture control on any EF lenses.

**The Canon EF mount offers a *REAL* advantage brought about strictly by virture of its aperture ring-less design,and that is that the diaphragm mechanism is actuated electronically in Canon EOS bodies. In Nikon bodies, there is a mechanical lever in all slr bodies, and all Nikkor lenses with diaphragms are made with a diaphragm stop-down lever can get bent,hit,or damaged. Inside of ALL Nikon bodies made since 1959 in the infamous aperture stopdown lever. The body has a lever. Every lens has a lever. It's a purely mechanical interface which depends on the body lever allowing the spring-loaded diaphragm inside each Nikkor lens to stop down to taking aperture when the shutter is fired.This is old-fashioned, but this is the protocol set up for the 1959 F-mount lens system and all F-mount bodies. Canon ditched their mechanical body-to-lens diaphragm control and adjustment interface when it went from the FD mount to the EF mount in the 1980's. Nikon still maintains the mechanical interface for diaphragm actuation between each body and each lens, and the G-series Nikon still has all the problems of the mechanical linkage on EACH lens in the G-series. Removing the aperture ring from a lens designed for an F-mount body is not a "real" advantage, but merely an imitation of Canon's lens barrel design. Nikon has stuck with the mechanical lens diaphragm system in EVERY,and I mean EVERY slr body and every diaphragm-fitted lens Nikon has ever made. Stripping off the aperture ring from lenses makes your system "LOOK like Canon's system", that is to say, with lens barrels that have no apewrture control rings. But it's only skin deep! Canon got rid of the clunky mechanical lever in the body and on each lens,and went with an electrically-relayed system. Benefit: more-accurate,and more-precise diaphragm control,due to an all- electronic communication between lens and body. The advantage remains with the EOS system for simplicity and modernity of design, but I'd prefer to have aperture rings on all my lenses, for several reasons!

**Maybe Nikon could re-think manual focusing on its telephoto lenses. The old 1976 400mm/3.5 ED~IF has superb manual focusing. Superb. Adjustable tension from one-finger feather-touch to moderate to quite stiff,depending on the set screw's tension. The 400/3.5 also has a pre-set focusing distance detent,which can be "overrun" or moved past, and which is part and parcel of the set screw system. One simple knurled knob controls both the forced needed, and the pre-set distance you set. You can also use the detent to keep the lens from focusing past infinity (which is does,as do as do most ED-glass Nikkors), or for setting the back-focus range to say, 250 feet so that you're working ONLY from closest focus and out to no farther than 250 feet as the far focus limit. Focus on any distance, and turn the screw,and pre-set that distance into the simple,mechanical memory,and you've suddenly got a pre-set, a little automated manual focusing supertele. All these features of the 400/3.5 are all well and good, but what we really need, IMHO, is better manual focusing "ACTION" on most AF-D and AF-S lenses. Better action,and better feel, and better arrangement of the distances involved on the focusing rings of the lenses. In a word, Infinity to 10 feet focus on most AF Nikkors has become way,way to COARSE and crude for decent manual fousing. Especially on the Micro-Nikkors, and also on the wides, and many zooms too.

**Nikon announced in early 2006 that it was discontinuing all manual focus 35mm and all large-format and enlarging lenses,and the implication was that slimming down the lens catalog would free up more resources and thus help Nikon in getting out some new lenses. Nikon's primes are old designs, most of them with 1980's mechanicals--screw-driven focusing, button-and-ring switches for Auto/Manual focus on the lens barrels of many of them, so no AF-S and no focusing override, and of course no VR. The 180 AF-D design dates to 1988, the 60 Micro with that infernal button-and-ring A/M switch system, and the the 135/2 Defocus dates to to 1990,and the 60,105 DC and 135 DC all share that stupid button-and-ring A/M switch. The 60 Micro was introduced because the 55mm AF Micro was a total sales failure,probably because it was one sloppy-sloppy lens. The 60 is very sturdily-built--and is MUCH nicer a design than the 55 AF was. Basically, most of Nikon's standard autofocus "professional" prime lens designs originated in the 1980's,or the early,early 1990's. I hope that Nikon re-tools some of its popular primes with AF-S focusing, looks at improving the manual focus feel and performance in its AF lenses, and continues with the aperture ring on ALL upcoming lenses. And I hope Nikon gets off its butt and designs a few lenses specifically for the DX format and for serious use--they have plenty of soccer mom and kit lenses,and some doggone good ones.

**What has Nikon done in the wide-angle prime segment in the last four years? They have introduced the 10.5mm fisheye,and discontinued the 28mm f/1.4 AF-D aspherical. IOW, Nikon hasn't done a damned thing in the wideangle prime market in four years. No net gain in wide primes. I hope they replace the 28/1.4 with an AF-S version,and make another few wide primes. Nikon also needs to address the huge gulf between the 50mm 1.4 AF-D and the 85 1.4 AF-D if they're really serious about APS-C aka 1.5x aka DX sensors....where the heck is that 60mm f/1.4 AF-S lens??? Huh? Where for that matter, is a single wide angle lens of f/2,or faster aperture speed? Right now the fastest and widest Nikkor is the....12-24mm f/2.8 zoom. Hmmm....WTF is Nikon's lens problem. Really, what the hell is the problem Nikon?

Well, those are a few things on my mind tonight. I might decide to pull the G-series stuff and write a separate post on why the G-series with its aperture ring removed ( the castrated G-series mount,as I think of it) really is not a good thing for the Nikon system,nor is it a good thing for people who have a LOT of years and time and money invested in the Nikon system; the G-series offers no real advantages,and it makes lenses tremendously LESS-VERSATILE and lower in value. Try reverse-mounting a G-series lens. Hell...examine a used G-series lens and see how difficult it is to check the lens for dust or decementing or diaphragm problems.

Thom Hogan Blasted on dPreview In Nikon Commentary Flap

2007-02-14T09:34:00.000-08:00

I just spent the better part of a night wading through several dPreview threads (150,111,and 87 posts) in which Thom Hogan was blasted by a few Nikon loyalists who took him to task for written comments he has made recently. I'm not surprised,either. Hogan has made many written comments that aren't flattering to Nikon,and in recent weeks he's made a few of what he characterizes as "provocative" comments. The reason he's made so many unflattering comments about Nikon is that Nikon has some real problems with its performance as a company,and with some of its equipment lineup,and with the way it handles NPS issues and problems, and with its insular nature. Yeah, Hogan got kind of blasted on dPreview, and most all of the criticism he received was undeserved. I've been blogging about most of the issues Hogan has identified as problems with Nikon and their products for quite some time. The Fanboi culture that has sprouted up among new digital converts to Nikon reared its head throughout these threads,along with sane writings from a few people like Scrutneys Nut Pea Funch, ednaz, and a few others who are longtime shooters. It's weird that so often,the people newest to Nikon are the staunchest defenders of the company,the company,the company, while others show the ability to maintain open-minded ideas about Nikon,and about the other companies and their products which compete with Nikon and its products.

As Hogan recently wrote, Nikon does a lot of things right, and he brings up some of the things Nikon does not do right so that they might be able to improve on those things too. I think that's a good thing. He's on the side of Nikon USERS, Nikon shooters, and Nikon-using and Nikon-buying photographers. Trashing on Thom Hogan for "negativity" is stupid. Hell, he's advocating for better products...for clear company-to-consumer communication....for new lens designs...for some improved camera models with better performance....for better NPS support for pro members. Cripes, what _is_ the problem people? He's not attacking a company you own or run or even work at. He's advocating for better equipment and more-modern lenses and for better business practices. Am I missing something? Who loses when Nikon responds to pressure and makes better equipment? The internet has spawned the growth of something almost like college football rivalries--where "companies that compete with" (and against?) Nikon are viewed with a degree of derision that's like old-time college football rivalry hatred. A small but noticeable segment in the Nikon Stadium is the Fanboi Zone.

I think that the careful,critical analysis and comments about how to approach customers,how to approach markets, and how to approach and deal with NPS members is something Nikon could listen to Hogan about. I'm not impressed with how Nikon has handled Quality Assurance issues in the digital era--there have been a number of widespread QA problems with various Nikon gear in the d-slr era.The D1 and its bad banding and the "D1 silent upgrade program" ,the D2h dead meter syndrome, the D70 blinking green light of death issue,and the D200 banding fiasco, as well as the supply problems with D200 batteries due to the recall of so many bad batteries, the 12-24, the 17-55, D70 supply problems, D200 body supply problems,etc. My second Torrance repair job got me a $704 repair bill for a depth of field preview button failure from Nikon,Torrance which I had my dealer reduce to $500--then I found out at home that the repair had been BUNGLED, with only 50% of the DOF preview function restored! Not pleasant! The widespread electrical malfunction that crippled so many 70-200VR lenses was one mass QA bungle that affected me personally--the early 70-200VR lenses were done in by a pretty basic design fault that rendered them useless due to electrical contact problems....my $1,699 70-200VR functioned for only a very short time, then needed to be returned for upgrading,as did countless other peoples' lenses. Frankly, Nikon as a company is not without faults and weaknesses, and frankly the imaging market is changing,and people demand a lot,and deserve a lot of value for the kind of money they are paying for today's better cameras and lenses. Nikon can stand a little heat from Thom Hogan,or any other industry observer. There's no need to defend Nikon from mere words. Nikon ought to be glad it gets any press and ink at all--I bet Olympus would love to be in a position where anybody even cared enough to write about them as a company.

Where to begin is difficult. Here are some URL's for those of you who missed the flap. I missed the flap myself,and only went back and read about it three days afterward. A big can of worms was opened up in this thread, which was entitled
"Next Generation upgrades for D3". It went eight pages and 150 posts, and spun off several threads with Thom Hogan being sort of the fulcrum point of the threads,except for the thread "Thom Hogan's remarks", in which others basically stepped in after all the fallout,and sort of said their piece.

A thread entitled simply "Thom Hogan"
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=22013941&page=1

Thom says here,"...we can all just sit here and twiddle our thumbs until the Nikon Designers bless us with another product and we can then accept it fully as it is, or we can speak up and say what it is that we want and why."

Thread entitled "I'm still confused Thom.continuation" is at

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=22014881&page=1 and shows some ire being aimed Hogan's way.

A third thread entitled "Thom Hogan's remarks" begins at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=22029778

These long threads basically center around Hogan's comments about Nikon and Nikon products. The issues are really not just Thom Hogan's issues, but issues that are much bigger than he is. Nikon does not acknowledge Thom Hogan as a Nikon expert,and the company and he have no official ties,and he has by his own account, no direct ties to the company,and his inside sources at Nikon are not what would be considered numerous nor are they "main-line" type sources shall we say. But he HAS MADE A LIVING and he has developed a base of knowledge from his various Nikon equipment e-books, and he's also done a very nice CD-ROM Complete Guide To The FujiFilm FinePix S5 Pro, which I own and think was a nice guidebook on disc. Basically, Thom Hogan has recently distilled Nikon's woes down to about four main areas where Nikon is performing poorly. And of course, he's also touched upon some other real,significant problem areas with Nikon, both in terms of its products and its roadmap and business plans for the future.

Hogan's comments surrounding the next-generation Nikon D3 camera(s) drew a lot of heat. If there's a thread that you OUGHT to read, it's this one of the four at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=21954111&page=1

Hogan has made it clear that Nikon has been unable to stop the migration of top shooters away from Nikon and to the Canon system,and that Nikon's current actions and products and unclear marketing message/lack of public roadmap are seriously failing to stop the migration toward Canon gear. Nikon has maintained for a long time that the DX-sized sensor is "the way to go". And Hogan's top camera of choice is still the Nikon D2xs, and he'll also select the Nikon D200 for some uses. But he's not a Fanboi,and he's not a newbie who needs brand-loyalist yes-man talk about Nikon to make himself feel good about his investment in Nikon cameras and flashes and lenses. Check out his Nikon writings at http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm

The underlying problems with Nikon and its products, as Hogan sees it, are pretty closely in line with my own opinions about Nikon,and I think the blasting Hogan got was largely from people who misconstrued what he was saying,and also from people who by and large are a little bit too insecure about their favorite brand. I know what it is like to take heat and flak from brand loyalists who absolutely can not stand criticism of their "brand", and who can not stand cold,hard,factual comparisons between cameras and equipment where the facts do not happen to agree with preconceived,brand-loyalist dogma. Nikon has some problems,both as a company,and with its products,and with its manufacturing and distribution arms. Nikon has LONG been a very cold, stand-offish,insular,Japanese company with very little interface with its actual customers. That's my experience,as a Nikon user since 1982. Nikon has always been kinda' slow to respond,in my experience.

It's hard to write about somebody else,and who said what,and who was right about what and who was wrong.I've been using Nikon cameras and lenses as my main 35mm film system since 1982,and have been shooting Nikon digital since I bought my very first digital camera, which was the Nikon D1 in early 2001. I've owned the D1, D1h,D70,and D2x Nikons and the Fuji S1 and S2 Pro models, as well as the EOS 20D. Each of those cameras had strong points and weak points. And that's really the issue now with Nikon as a company, and as a product line--it has both strong and WEAK points, or weak areas. The Fanboi culture cannot seem to understand that Nikon has *real* issues, and real *gaps* in its product matrix. Nikon is not perfect.

As Hogan pointed out, the D1 garnered a lot of interest in Nikon digital,and was a landmark camera. But since that time, Canon has continually managed to pull ahead of Nikon,and to stay ahead of Nikon. Hogan's recent writings have lead to the topic of the Nikon D3 generation of cameras,and how Nikon is positioned in relation to Canon,as well as the rest of the imaging industry. Hogan's contentions are those of a guy who has made a living off of being a Nikon writer and Nikon "expert", as well as an avid outdoor/nature/backpacking photographer/writer/instructor. His guidebooks on Nikon cameras and flash have earned him respect and a fan base, and his www.bythom.com web site has a lot of useful articles and essays. He has recently conducted a lens survey (a copy of which I filled out and submitted via the web) to determine some points of view on the Nikon lens lineup and what current Nikon shooters say they want,and how badly they want what.

Thom Hogan is not anti-Nikon. He's not overly negative. He's a realist.He calls 'em as he sees 'em. Check out one of Hogan's newest Nikkor lens reviews, for the 18-200 VR at around $700. http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm Read the review and you'll find one of the most-popular consumer lenses for the D200 earning a very,very positive review. The 18-200 is the lens that most newbies aspire to own,since it does perform so well,over such a wide focal length range,at such a fair price for quality optics and high utility in a one-lens solution or "superzoom". Oh, and the lens has VR too!

One of the things that got Hogan blasted was the way he called attention to deficits in the D2H and D2hs camera models.He's positive on a great product, the 18-200 VR. But he's never been all that positive on the D2H or hs models. The D2x series models, despite vastly higher retail prices, have vastly,vastly OUT-SOLD the lower-MP D2H and hs models, which is kind of a problem, in that the D2H and D2hs models have represented a big,fat failure in the face of the Canon 1D Mark II at 8.2 MP and 8 frames a second, and the re-work of that to the EOS 1D Mark II-N with the larger 2.5 inch LCD screen and a tweak here and there. Nikon's been losing professional market share to Canon steadily, and Hogan is pointing out that the Nikon company is not approaching the market as well as it could, or as well as say, Canon is actually approaching and interfacing with the customers,through business channels and through product lines,and company press releases. AS Hogan points out, Nikon has offered customers nothing but DX-sized sensors, and diffraction isues prevent cramming more megapixels onto a DX-sized sensor without coming up against the noise demons and DIFFRACTION issues that severely limit one's f/stop choices. The D2x is about the end of the line...12.4 MP on a DX-sized sensor is about it,right now. Or so it seems. Nikon's simply going to have to go to BIGGER SENSORS,and soon. But when????

Nikon's D2H and D2Hs at 4.1 MP with wacky sensors have been clobbered by the 8.2 megapixel EOS 1D Mark II and the 1D Mark II-N cameras. The D2H and 1D Mark II class cameras are the sports/photojournalism/wedding/generalist type cameras of professional grade and high ruggedness. Nikon has simply not been able to be competitive in this class. And professionals have looked to Canon cameras in this class in ever-increasing numbers. Nikon's own IN-HOUSE developed sensor, a 4.1 Megapixel LBCAST sensor, has been in the D2H and D2hs. The LBCAST sensor premiered in the D2H. Sony's first CMOS sensor premiered in the Nikon D2X. D2H, D2X, both had first-of-their-kind sensors as features. Think about it for a bit.

The simple truth is that Canon is pulling away from Nikon at the "Serious User" end of the market,and Nikon's lens lineup and body offerings are starting to seem,well, too narrow to satisfy the "majority" of the serious user market. The higher-end shooters like to have the biggest,best system from which to assemble their kit. With three types of bodies, Canon has the body thing down well. And Canon has a decided advantage in many lens classes. Not all, but many. I myself think Nikon needs to consider changing the way it approaches the market of making cameras and lenses. I've felt for over two decades that Nikon's higher-end amateur models were the best Nikon cameras available in terms of bang-for-dollar spent, and the FM/FE, FM-2 and FE-2, N8008,and N90 series models offered tremendous apability for their price,size,and weight. Today, the Nikon D200 is the high-end amateur camera oofering the best bang-for-dollar-spent value proposition. Where I myself would like to see Nikon go is slightly away from the traditional pro lens lineup and into something more modern and discretely different from the pack. But Nikon's not actively working to expand its system to cover the type of things a lot of pros and serious shooters want and expect these days. More MP, better ISO performance, and better software integration with Adobe Photoshop are problem areas for Nikon products,as compared with Canon products. The white balance encryption stunt with the D2x was a major,major Nikon boner. A total screw-up. Totally without provocation,and just a major screw-up on Nikon's part,on behalf of Nikon shooters everywhere. Nikon Capture 4.x and Capture NX? Serious work still needs to be done on the software end by Nikon. Or better yet, serious software work needs to be contracted to a company fa,far outside Nikon--a company that understands how to develop modern software and write effective code and to find bugs BEFORE releasing the product.

I tell you what...I bought a D2x in May of 2005,and have been annoyed with the software hassles with D2x files and Adobe Photoshop and ACR and Capture 4.xx and Capture NX. Nikon got a few things right in Capture NX, BUT, and this is a big but, it's a buggy,crash-prone piece of software that's got a lot of weird quirks. Oh, and it crashes. And did I mention it has a lot of weird quirks and interface problems not found in Photoshop's ACR or Bibble or SilkyPix or DPP? Sigh.

Nikon cameras are all DX-sized sensor models. Canon has given its customers three lines: Full-Frame, 1.3x high-speed-high-res generalist cameras, and the lineup of 1.6x cameras spanning beginner and semi-pro type models with the EOS Digital Rebel line and the 60D-10D-20D-30D series and now, the affordably-priced,high-resolution-low-noise camera, the EOS 5D, a 12.8 megapixel model that's not a 1-series, but is full-frame in its imaging chip size. Canon customers know a good deal about what Canon offers,which is a camera sensor size for every segment of the market. Nikon on the other hand, is offering only one sensor size, not three sizes, across all segments from beginner-amateur-serious amatuer-sports/event/generalist and finally the flagship segment. Nikon is being coy about full-frame,but the problem is that Canon will very soon announce a 22 megapixel full-frame 1-series body. Nikon's got nothing like that. But even worse, Nikon has no semi-pro, $2,000-$2,500 body that has a high-res sensor in a moderately-nice serious enthusiast type body like the F100 film camera of yore. In other words, Nikon is missing a full-frame sensored option in a D200-like body.In other words, Nikon is missing an EOS 5D, an economy full frame model.

But, even more significantly, Nikon is missing a killer sports/PJ/nature/generalist camera that has 8 or 10 megapixels,high FPS, high-performance AF, the awesome Nikon i-TTL flash system, and the killer battery system of the D2x. With, and this is the important part, a sensor that can deliver beautiful images at ISO 800,and doggone good ones at ISO 1600. With good color,and not this damned excessive infrared/excess magenta problem that renders so doggone many synthetic fabrics and black things as off-black. Nikon is getting its proverbial ASS KICKED in the sports/photojournalism/generalist camera market, where the D2H and hs models have been total sales FAILURES, with a lot of sensor-related complaints,such as too few MP for cropping, funky IR response making blacks look magenta and purpleish,shadow noise problems, color shifts, and in general a feeling that the sensor does not deliver image files on par with those from the 8.2 MP Canon competition. The EOS 1D Mark II and Mark II-N models have met with good,almost stellar approval,and eight-point-two QUALITY megapixels is a wonderful compromise that offers cropping capability, high resolution,reasonable file size economy, and good workflow speed and modest archiving needs. WITH a fully professional camera body to go with a damned good CMOS sensor.

Nikon's counter-offerings to the EOS 1D Mark II and Mark II-N, the D2 series models H and hs,have been sales failures. Failures. There have been vastly more D2X and D2Xs-series camera sold than the h-variants. Which is not right. Nikon's generalist camera I recommend to people is the D200, not the D2Hs. It's a sad state of affairs. Nikon's best High-ISO camera might now be the D40,'cause it sure as heck isn't a D2x series model. What I did not really realize when I bought the D2X was that it was really a high-resolution studio camera. Not a field camera. It is clearly best at the lowest ISO ranges,and it does very poorly at anything other than moderately high ISO settings. But at lower ISO settings, under "controlled conditions" or in-studio, the D2X is a phenomenal camera. I bought it after reading the Thom Hogan review of it, and I was disappointed in the camera's performance at the highest "elevated" H-series ISO notches,which I think was and is a lot weaker a performance than his review described it as being. At lower ISO's the D2X is a quite amazing machine, but its small,high-density sensor has very tighly-packed,small photoreceptors,and it is prone to diffraction,so using the smaller apertures (smaller than about f/13, like f/16 or f/22) are really killer on the final image quality. The D2x demands a lot of shot discipline and paying attention to the technical fundamentals,and it is,in my opinion, a pretty poor "generalist" type of camera.

The D3H needs to be one heck of a camera,in my opinion. Nikon's simply got to do one hell of alot BETTER against the EOS 1D Mark II-N. That means 10 MP, fast firing,and damned good image quality,at all ISO's. With good autofocus,and a reliable body. And did I say Nikon finally needs to get a handle on this excessive near-infrared sensitivity that's been screwing things up? Oh,and with no banding either,thank you.

Where Nikon does seem to be doing better is in the image processing arena,with its newer cameras D50,D80,and D40. Nikon's gotten better at implementing the right kind of curve application to the capture to give the in-camera JPEGs or the RAW+JPEG file jpegs some snap and has moved away from the heretofore typical dull-drab,kinda' blah "Nikon look" on RAW captures and even JPEG files. The consumer and advanced amateur camera segment with the D200-D50-D80-D40 models is really Nikon's best lineup ever in terms of fitness for purpose, in my opinion. But at the generalist or PJ camera level, Nikon's D2H and D2Hs models have been,well, a bit disappointing. And so have Fuji's oferings for the past couple years with the S3 Pro,which had a very low adoption rate until its price got to about 60% and then 50% and then 40% of its premier price point...the S3 Pro was perceived as overpriced and under-performing,as was the D2H and D2hs model duo. Nikon's been missing with the pro-level cameras D1h and D2H and D2hs,and to an extent, the D2X series of two models has been a bit of a missi in that the D2X and D2xs models are not really generalist cameras, but are really much more capable as studio cameras and low-ISO cameras.

Nikon is losing professional and serious enthusiast shooters to the Canon system. Nikon has had some pretty serious supply problems on many popular,new,key cameras, key lenses and key accessories since 2001. The NPS system has become a joke. Nikon seems quite out of touch with the wants and needs of the top end of the market,and has been beaten in two of the more prestigious camera segments. I would not mind seeing Nikon shift its emphasis away from the pro market,and more toward what I like to call the serious enthusiast market, with more lenses that are ABOVE the current standards for mid-level lenses, but below the prices for the really exotic lenses. In other words, I'd like to see Nikon focus its lens design efforts on creating some NEW LENSES that are not derived from 35mm film-based lens designs that have been kicking around for years and years. Instead of the 300 2.8, Nikon ought to consider developing say a 250mm f/2.5, or a 50-150 f/2.8 or a 70mm f/1.2 or 1.5, as well as a 50-250 f/2.8 or any number of straight 1.5x equivalent wide-angle lenses with fast maximum apertures. Nikon really,really,really needs to plug in the lens system gaps. Many lenses need re-designs,or complete re-thinks. Nikon's prime lens designs are aging,and the wide-angle,fast lenses are MIA.

PMA 2007 is just a short ways away. We'll see if Nikon has any significant announcements. Nikon sure could use some good news to get people more enthusiastic about Nikon as a system choice. I think for the hobbyist shooters and general mom and pop professional photography, Nikon has an amply broad and deep system to choose a kit from. But I do think that Nikon is *lagging behind* is some lens segments. With some seriously OUTDATED mechanical designs that have poor focusing characteristics, and which are simply nowhere near state of the art, despite representing the high end of the Nikon lineup. The good thing is that the NEWEST Nikkor professional lenses, like the 105 VR micro and the 200 f/2 VR and the 200-400 VR and the new 300/2.8 VR and the 70-200 VR, are major hits with those that can afford them. The bad thing is that the majority of the Nikkor lens lineup is,well, kind of old now,and there are still a lot of missing lenses for a camera company that's just about hit the end of the Dx-sized sensor gravy train at 12.4 MP.

Nikon needs to find a way to get its cameras into higher resolution with lower noise levels and better imaging quality,and it seems that the Dx-sized sensor has about topped out at 10 to 12 megapixels, or we need to have some massive breakthroughs in sensor design and performance. Canon's moving quite fluidly and well through the 1.0x-1.3x-1.6x sensor size fields,as appropriate,to get the best mix of performance and imaging characteristics....Nikon is still sticking to 1.5x or DX-sesored cameras,and as the D2x proves, there's a limit to how small the photosites can be and still give the kind of imaging we all demand from a professionally-priced camera. Nikon's got some sensor issues to solve. Nikon needs to get a full-frame sensored option on the market,or make an announcement about it reasonably soon if it wishes to stop the migration toward Canon at the higher end of the market. At the consumer end of the market, the NEWEST small Nikons offer a lot, and the D200 and D80 and D50 and the very-newest D40 models are offering a lot. But those two "professional cameras" Nikon has right now, D2Xs and D2hs, are really not offering Nikon the kind of market penetration Nikon gets with its newer,more-competitive lower market cameras. Nikon's REALLY got some issues in the higher-end product line. I payed $5,000 for a D2x....I'm kind of disappointed that as a total "generalist tool", the EOS 20D at 1/3 the price offers 80 percent of the same quality and capabilities, but better PICTURES at higher ISO's than the pro Nikon.

The D2x is a lousy sports camera, and it's a lousy generalist tool as well. It's a studio camera, and a low ISO camera. When I bought the D2x, my only other professional body choices in F mount were the D2Hs for $3,499 or the FujiFilm S3 Pro for $2,499. There was no D200 then. No D80. Adding an 's' to a D2x has not been enough of an update for Nikon. It has been two years since the D2x was introduced,and it still represents the best Nikon can do in a professional camera. No wonder so many people are disappointed, and no wonder so many people have switched to Canon's 1D Mark II N 8.2 MP model,and to the EOS 5D,or to the 20D or 30D for that matter.

Nikon still has a lot of work to do in the serious camera and serious lens segments. Nikon's doin' great at the consumer end of the market and product matrix, but they do indeed have some serious issues that just are not inspiring confidence at the higher end of the market.