NZ Digital

Filtered or Unfiltered?

2012-01-30T16:47:00.000+13:00

No, this isn't a blog post on how you prefer your cigarettes :-)

The more I shoot with the Olympus EP-3, the more I find myself using an Art Filter (or two). My favourite has to be the Dramatic Tone Filter, because the images are, well, so darn dramatic! In fact, I'm so used to shooting with this filter now, that I've begun to use the 'filter bracketing' feature of the EP-3. Long story short - enable 'filter bracketing' in the bracketing menu, choose which filters to include in the bracket sequence (as many as you want!), and then take a 'normal' picture in the mode of your choice (that would be A for me). The camera takes a normal image, and then applies any of the art filters that you've checked to the image to create a new, art filter file. Brilliant!

The 'normal' jpeg image in vs the Dramatic Tone filter shot. Which do you prefer?

Up until now I've been fiddling about with the art filters and applying them whenever I felt like it - or remembered to. But with the ability to 'bracket' the filters so they are applied to each and every shot, I now get the best of both worlds. Because quite often it's not a matter of one or the other - I actually end up liking all of them.

Side by side comparison again.

I only have the 'dramatic tone' filter added to my bracketing sequence, so I still have to go into the Art Filter mode if I want to apply any others. I could add Grainy Black and White, Pop Art, and Diorama to the bracketing sequence ( the other art filters I use a lot), but this adds time to the processing of the image - each takes a second or two to apply. The great thing about applying the filters as a bracket though, is that you also get an 'original' normal file - something you don't get when you shoot specifically in the Art Filter Mode. So bracketing of art filters, even if it's just your favourite one, is worth it.

The Price we Pay. Olympus EP-3, Dramatic Tone filter.

And finally - above is a shot I've been meaning to get for quite a while. I had heard about this little petrol (gas) station that had a sign up stating that petrol was an 'Arm and a Leg'. It's in a tiny town about 40 minutes drive from where I live, but I don't really get out there all that often. I had also heard that they had taken the sign down, so I presumed I had missed the opportunity.

Fortunately, we had to take a drive out that way last weekend, and I took the camera just on the off chance there would be some good images to be had (all the images from this post were taken on the same day). Couldn't believe my luck when we passed the station and my wife told me the sign was back up! Always great to find someone with the same warped sense of humor as me!?

Landscapes with the Olympus EP-3

2012-01-04T12:15:00.000+13:00

Up until a couple of nights ago, I'd really only use the Pen Ep-3 as a family, snap-shot camera. My 'carry around for fun' compact camera. And it's great for such a purpose. But is that all it's good for? Or can I start using it as my really 'serious' camera for professional work?

Te Kinga Sunset. Olympus EP-3, Dramatic Tone filter

Just before the new year, a friend invited me to go out with him to shoot the sunset. We had been having amazing sunsets, night after night, so I jumped at the chance to go out with him - even though this particular night didn't look that promising.

We headed out to Moana, a town about half an hours travel from Greymouth, that has stunning lake views if the light is right (and we were hoping it would be).

Sunset was late - around 9.30pm, so we travelled around a bit in the early evening, looking to find the right spot to set up and catch the sunset. We finally settled on the tiny settlement of Te Kinga, nestled next to the lake (Lake Brunner), since it offered a range of possibilities for varied shots.

The above image was taken reasonably early on in the evening, around 8.00pm, just as the sun was starting to sink and colour was appearing on the horizon. As soon as we saw this happen, we knew we were going to be lucky enough to witness another stunning sunset - and even more lucky to catch it on camera!

Pink Sky's at Night. Olympus EP-3, Pop Art filter

At the beginning of the evening I set the camera to the 'Dramatic Tone' filter, hoping that it would really amp up the drama and the colours appearing in the sky. The results were ok, but not really what I was after.

Then I switched to the 'Pop Art' filter, and bingo - success! The colours that were already happening in the sky were intensified 100%, and immediately I knew this was what I was after.

The Pop Art filter has two saturation settings - the first is totally crazy psychedelic, the second a bit more subtle, and it was the second setting that I went for. Enough to make you go 'wow', but not too much to make you go 'aarrghh'.

Funnily enough, the Pop Art filter was one of the filter sets I dismissed as pointless when I initially looked through the menu, but in reality I've started using it quite a bit. And for sunsets, it rocks!

Te Kinga Silhouette. Olympus EP-3, Pop Art filter

Shooting in Art Filter mode allowed me to keep the ISO on 'Auto' and have the camera range from between 200 to 1600 (my specified limits). This, combined with a very good image stabilisation system, allowed me to hand hold the camera for all of these images. Using the attached electronic viewfinder also helps keep things steady with a point of contact when the camera is up to your eye. I was walking from one location to the next when I looked up and saw these two mighty trees silhouetted against the sunset. I 'grabbed' this shot, and moved on to the next location. This 'grab' shot - a single frame - turned out to be one of my favorite shots of the evening.

In the Fiery Glow. Olympus EP-3, Pop Art filter set to mode II

Almost no matter where we pointed our cameras, the view, and the light, was stunning! And even though I was using the slightly more subtle mode of the Pap Art filter, occasionally the colours still over saturated. I have toned down the saturation in the above image (believe it or not) by dialing in -10 saturation in photoshop. I still love the full-on colour, but the yellow was getting a bit too 'hot' straight out of the camera, even for me.

Could I have gotten the same result by switching the colour mode on the camera to 'Vivid' (instead on Neutral)? I don't know, because I didn't try it. I suspect even at 'Vivid', the colours wouldn't be as vibrant as they are when you use the Pop Art filter - but I'll actually have to test that out next time. In fact, for a guy who likes punchy colours (Velvia is my all-time favorite film), what am I doing shooting in 'Nuetral' colour space anyway? Maybe I really should investigate further!?

Te Kinga by Moonlight. EP-3, Pop Art filter, 20sec exposure at f11

Anyway, I digress. Getting back to the evening... as the sun went down almost completely, the moon made an appearance and it was time to break out the tripods.

I love long exposure images, so I was very keen to see how the EP-3 handled under these conditions. To get the best out of the sensor I switched to ISO 200, to keep the noise as low as possible. But I stayed on 'Pop Art' to keep the intensity in the colours that I was seeing on the lcd screen. With an aperture of f11 to get good depth of field, shutter speeds ranged between 15 to 30 seconds, depending on where I pointed the camera. After the exposure, the camera also applied its own noise reduction process, doubling the exposure time (a 15 second exposure was followed by a 15 second noise-reduction exposure by the camera).

The resulting images are OK - but not completely noise free. To get the above image looking how I wanted, I did have to put the image through Noise Ninja. Having said that though, it cleaned up very well, and these are all jpegs remember. I probably could have gotten an even better result had I switched to RAW? That's an experiment for next time as well.

So what's the verdict? Would I use the Pen EP-3 for 'serious' professional landscape work? Yes, I would. In fact I'm sure that some of these Te Kinga sunset images will appear in future calendars. I wouldn't hesitate to print them up to 8x12 as is - and easily 11x16 with some added noise reduction.

Has it made my Canon gear obsolete? No, of course not. If anything, the limiting factor for me at the moment is lenses. 28mm isn't quite wide enough for me at time on the EP-3. I'd love to go to 24mm, or maybe even 20mm.

Hang on... isn't there a conversion lens that lets you do that to the standard lens on the Pen? Might have to look into that I reckon.

Merry Christmas to all...

2012-01-04T10:24:00.002+13:00

Olympus EP-3, Pop Art with Starburst filter

Yes, I know, it's a bit late for 'Merry Christmas', and even too late for 'Happy New Year', but it's the thought that counts - isn't it?

Nevertheless, the holiday season is upon us (here in New Zealand at least), and most people have two weeks off over christmas and new year to recharge the batteries (so to speak) before 2012 starts in earnest again.

Having just bought the EP-3, there's only been one thing on my mind (other than reading some good books), and that's to get out and shoot with it as much as possible.

My first real opportunity came when we decided to head out a few nights before christmas the check out a local christmas tree display, and some houses decked out in lights.

EP-3 with Grainy Black and White filter

The Christmas three display was held in our local theatre, so the lighting was fairly low. I have the EP-3 set to 'Auto' ISO, within a range of 200 to 1600 when I'm using the P, A, S, M modes, and not surprisingly the camera set itself on 1600 and stayed there all night.

The more I use the EP-3, the more I 'play' with the built-in art filters - starting out with 'pop art' to really add some punch to the colours, and then adding a starburst to see what sort of effect this would give me.

There was colour, colour everywhere, so I had fun shooting with the camera set to pop art for a while, until some little voice in the back of my mind (listen to that little voice) told me to try going the exact opposite and shoot in black and white.

EP-3 with Grainy Black and White filter

I really liked the resulting images - the black and white lending itself more to shapes and shadows than the punchy, in-your-face pop art filter. Look closely in the photo above and you can make out me taking the photo with the EP-3 in the gold ball. There's some great bokeh in this image as well, with a nice sharp ball falling away very quickly to some creamy out-of-focus background. Very nice.

Christmas Lights. EP-3 in standard colour mode

When we left the tree display and headed outside to shoot some of the houses, I went for a more 'traditional' approach - switching the camera back to 'standard' colour mode. I've been shooting jpegs straight out of the camera, even though I know the EP-3 shoots in RAW. Most photographers who have used the Pen series (and other Olympus DSLR's) agree that Olympus do an amazing job of nailing jpegs, and I would have to agree. I haven't really had to do amy 'tweaking' of the files so far, especially when you take the art filters into consideration. It's pretty much all done for you in-camera.

I had a blast shooting the christmas light with the EP-3, especially taking it up to ISO1600. The resulting files are pretty clean, even though the lcd screen gives you the feeling that it's going to be pretty noisy.

My only gripe on the night isn't with the camera itself, but with a third-party battery I purchased for it. The Olympus battery died on me not long after taking this image above, but I had prepared for this by bringing along a freshly charged battery I bought off of trademe (a NZ internet auction site). Popped it in the camera, pushed the 'on' button, and nothing happened! Nothing! Bugger. Seems like I got a dud. Very disappointing - and it will be going back to be replaced. Hopefully I'll have more luck with the 'new' one?

Gordy's Camera Strap

2012-01-03T12:47:00.000+13:00

The retro styling of the EP-3 demands a retro strap - not the boring black neck strap that comes bundled with the camera.

A quick search for 'camera straps' on Google comes up with the obvious solution - a leather wrist strap from Gordy's Camera Straps.

Very stylish, very cool, very retro - and most importantly, very well made, I ordered a natural leather strap immediately. The price is also very reasonable ($18.00US) - delivered!

It only took a couple of weeks, and on Christmas Eve, my strap arrived on my doorstep ready for the Christmas holidays. I put it on the EP-3 straight away - and as you can see in the photo - it definitely looks the part! And feels the part too! Very comfortable.

Gordy also makes leather straps for SLR's and medium format TLR's, so I'm sure this won't be my only purchase.

If you care about the look, and security, of your camera - no matter what it is - then I suggest you head on over the Gordy's website and pick up a strap for yourself. Heck, why not pick up two for that price!?

Art Filters

2011-12-08T14:30:00.001+13:00

I'm a photoshop guy. I've taught it to my photography students for years - and used it in my graphic design and photography business even longer.

So when I read that the Pen cameras had 'Art Filters', I snorted, rolled my eyes, and chalked it up to another 'useless' feature that modern cameras lumber us serious photographers with.

And then I got an EP-3. And I started using the Art Filters - purely for educational purposes you understand. And I wasn't rolling my eyes anymore (well, not with a few of them at least). In fact, I may use a couple of the Art Filters more often than not - they really are that good.

Boat Ramp. Olympus EP-3, Grainy B&W Art Filter, 16:9 aspect ratio

I'm in love with the Grainy Black and White filter and will probably use this a LOT. I'm a black and white fan anyway - but add to that the best digital application of film grain I've ever seen straight out of a camera, and I'm in heaven. The engineers/software guys at Olympus who developed this filter should take the rest of the year off - they deserve it.

I also enjoy the fact that you can view the results live - in real time - on the back of the beautiful 3" OLED screen on the EP-3. That's how I got the shot above - I saw it on the back of the screen as I was walking along with the camera pointed down. The shadows and shapes stopped me in my tracks, and 'click', I had the shot. I know I wouldn't have got this image had the Art Filter not been on and tracking in real-time. Brilliant!

Coastline. EP-3, Dramatic Tone Filter

Another Art Filter that I'm using a lot is the 'Dramatic Tone' filter. It's not quite HDR - but close enough. As the name suggests, it adds more 'drama' to your image - bringing fairly lifeless lighting to life. Just like HDR, you wouldn't want to apply it to every shot (probably not great for portraits), but once again it's an amazingly effective one-touch effect and something that would definitely take a while to replicate in Photoshop (for the novice at least).

Storm approaching. EP-3, Dramatic Tone Filter

You can also add border effects (the film-like edges is my favorite) instantly just to finish the 'arty' look off - and why wouldn't you? Again, it's better to do it at the time of capture, than in Photoshop later on. And if you decide you don't want the border, just crop it out. But I do like it, and it's a look that I gave to a lot of my images in post-processing. Now, the EP-3 does it all for me!

Another feature I'm really enjoying on the EP-3 (and other cameras feature this as well) is the different aspect ratios you can shoot in - from the digital 4:3 standard, to a more 35mm 3:4, a wide-screen 16:9, or a medium-format looking square 1:1. Very cool.

And the EP-3 makes it so easy to 'play' with the art filters by adding filter bracketing. Just decide which filters you want to include, and after you shoot a normal image, the camera goes about processing other photos, applying the art filter modes you've chosen. It does take a while for the camera to process the new images - about 1 or two seconds each - but compare that to the time you would have had to spend doing it in Photoshop, and it's a no brainer!

Other filters I intend to play with depending on the situation include: Pin Hole (adds a dark vignette and slight colour shift), Diorama (pseudo tilt-shift effect), Cross process (self explanatory) and Gentle Sepia (again, fairly self-explanatory). Not only will these be fun to explore on their own, you can also 'stack' certain filters - combining Cross Process with Pin Hole for example. Lots of opportunity for fun images.

The less impressive filters (for me at least) are the Soft Focus (too strong), Pale & Light Colour (too pastel), Light Tone (too wishy-washy) and Pop-Art filters (too trippy). I'm not sure I'll use these at all. And if I don't they can actually be turned off in the Pen's menu system so as not to get in the way.

Greymouth Wharf. EP-3. Grainy B&W Art Filter

It's early days, and I'm really only scratching the surface of the possibilities that Art Filters open up for creative image making. But it sure is making the Olympus Pen P-3 a lot of fun to make images with. And isn't that the point?

Pen EP-3 Ordered!

2011-12-01T14:55:00.001+13:00

Okay, I've done it.

After much gnashing of teeth and fretting over finances, I've ordered an EP-3 twin lens kit, with the EV-2 Electronic Viewfinder accessory (a must have as far as I'm concerned!).

The silver is very retro and very sexy, and I've opted for this instead of the understated black or chic white.

Will all be arriving tomorrow, so I'll charge up the battery (bought an after market spare one of them as well), configure the camera to my liking, and shoot like mad over the weekend!

Will obviously post more then - but until then go here to see a short advert for the new Pen. Very cool.

Pulling the trigger on a Pen EP-3

2011-11-30T22:51:00.001+13:00

I'm a 'big' guy when it comes to photography. Big cameras, big lenses, big backpacks, big reflectors. The bigger the better. Whenever I buy an SLR, I have to have the vertical grip that goes with it! And if the camera doesn't come with a vertical grip as an option, then I don't get the camera. Simple as that.

Yes, I like the extra real estate that a grip gives, even though I don't have particularly big hands. And yes, I appreciate the extra vertical shutter button and second battery option that these grips accommodate.

But over and above all that, I really like the extra weight you get with a grip attached - and the added 'coolness' - the extra professionalism if you will - that a grip offers. I love em!

Which is why I've struggled over the years to come up with a 'compact' camera system to carry around and use when I'm not in an SLR mood. Compact just isn't in my DNA. And believe me, I've tried.

The closest I've come to enjoying using a compact camera was way back when I first got into digital - about ten years ago, with a Canon G3. Not that you could call any of the Canon G series cameras 'compact'. And I guess that's what I liked about them. They weren't all that compact - but compact enough so that there was an obvious difference between them and a DSLR.

But that was ten years ago, and a lot has happened in the digital world since then.

Over the last couple of years, my interest has definitely been peeked by the introduction of the mirrorless EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras - especially the micro 4/3rds range from Panasonic and Olympus. I LOVE the look of the Olympus Pen range, but never felt that it had matured to the point where I was ready to jump in. The autofocus has always been suspect - especially on the original Pen EP-1, so I held off and waited... and waited... and waited...

Pohutakawa Flower - NZ Native. Olympus EP-3 and 14-42mm kit lens

This year, with the launch of the Pen EP-3, it seems that my wait may actually be over!

With the EP-3 it seems that Olympus have a real winner on their hands. Not only does it continue the sexy retro Pen look, but it is also claiming the fastest autofocus of any camera - period! Don't know about that, but at least now we are in the right ball park as far as autofocus is concerned. I'm interested.

Rusty Lock. EP-3 and 14-42mm lens

Not only is the autofocus worthy of a look, the EP-3 has touch screen technology which they have implemented better than the competition. Using a hi-res touch screen, the EP-3 enables you to choose a focus point, or even take a photo, with a touch of the screen. Swipe to move through images in playback a-la the iPhone, or access some basic image 'fixes' in IA (Intelligent Auto) mode.

All Tied Up. EP-3 with Grainy B&W Art filter. 1:1 Aspect ratio

And then, of course, there's the Art Filter modes. Yes, I know - in-camera filters are crap! But hang on a minute. A couple of the Pen Art Filters are actually very cool, and really well done. Especially grainy B&W combined with the black art frame. It's great to be able to actually see the effect on the large 3" screen while you're composing the shot - and you can even use them in movie mode, if you're that way inclined?

Emily. EP-3, Diorama Art Filter and 40-150mm lens

I had the privilege of getting to 'play' with the EP-3 before deciding whether or not I want to purchase one for myself. And I have to say, it's the most fun I've had with a camera of any sort in a very long time!

The menu system is incredibly extensive, and takes a bit of getting used to. The flip side of this, however, is that the Pen EP-3 is incredibly customisable. You can set it up exactly for your style of shooting. Nothing is really there for good if you don't want it to be. It is a small form factor, so the buttons and dials are a little fiddly. But not so fiddly to be unusable (although I wouldn't want to try it with gloves on!?), and it's the price we pay for smaller cameras I guess? The body itself is constructed of magnesium alloy, so it has a good heft to it - which can't really be said for the kit lenses. They are very plasticky, and incredibly light - but having said that, I can't complain about their image quality. And Olympus/Panasonic are releasing some 'serious' prime lenses with all metal construction if you've got the need (and the deep pockets) for such lenses.

What didn't I like? Well, outside in the harsh daylight, the lcd screen that you have to use to compose with (the Pen's have no built-in viewfinder) is almost unuseable! Aaargghh!!! They do sell a very good electronic viewfinder that fits on to the cameras hotshoe and clips into the back of the camera - but you pay for it! If/when I get the EP-3, the electronic viewfinder will be a necessity, and not an option!

Just add people

2011-09-20T14:27:00.000+12:00

If I had to pigeon-hole myself, I'd say that I'm a landscape photographer - even though I shoot weddings as part of my business.

While I really enjoy shooting weddings - love it, in fact (despite the stress and worry over the weather etc) - I also resisted it for the longest time because, at my core, I'm a bit of a loaner. I much prefer getting away from people, rather than seeking large groups of them out. Growing up I would have said that I was shy, although that shyness has certainly decreased the older I get. But I still don't like large groups of people. They make me nervous.

So, not surprisingly, when I wanted to start taking photography seriously, I gravitated towards the more lone pursuit of the landscape. All of my exhibitions have been on the landscape, and most of the framed prints in the house are (with the exception of family photos of course) landscapes. All of which is a long-winded way of saying "I'm a landscape kinda guy".

Driftwood. Canon 20D + EF-S 18-55mm IS @ f8

Where am I going with this? Well, this weekend we went for an afternoon walk along a local beach, and of course I took my camera. It was the middle of the afternoon, so I never expect to get amazing photos - but then again, you never know, right?

While walking along the beach we came across some pretty cool driftwood. Whenever I spot a photo opportunity - even when I'm with the family - I get into the 'zone' and start approaching the scene as I would if I was out taking landscapes on my own. So I tell the kids "stay out of the frame - don't get in the shot" - basically "leave me alone, I'm taking a photo". Yeah, not very nice, I know. Although in my defense, I never take very long at these moments, and the kids do have the whole rest of the beach to play on... just not in 'my' spot for a few minutes. Usually I'll end up taking a few of the kids playing in the same spot once I've finished as well - and that's what I did this weekend. I took my 'arty' landscape shots, and then some more family friendly 'snapshots' afterwards.

Driftwood and family. Canon 20D + EF-S 18-55mm IS

When I got home and looked through the downloaded images from the day I was pretty happy with some of the photos, despite the harsh mid afternoon sun. The clouds were pretty cool, and the driftwood quite dramatic - although I don't think I got anything portfolio worthy.

Maybe it was the time of day, or maybe it was my mindset when I took them, but the more I looked at the images, the more I felt myself drawn to the ones that had people in them, and the less interested I was in the 'arty' lone-landscape images. Upon reflection, the more I think about it, the more I realise this to be the case in the images that I find the most compelling - there's some human element there that makes the landscape more personal, more interesting and more intimate.

I purchased two photography books recently - both large books of landscapes taken on medium format. As impressive as the large landscape images were, I found myself simply flicking through the books very quickly, and then putting them down - somewhat dissatisfied (and if I'm really truthful downright disappointed) by the experience. The few images that really held my attention for more than a couple of seconds were those that contained at least some reference to the human (a sign, abandoned building, small figure) and I'm finding this increasingly relevant to my own photography.

Does that mean that I will never go out on my own again and make 'pure' landscape images? No - absolutely not. Maybe that's the challenge of taking landscapes that hold no human content?

Or maybe it means that we come to an image wanting to relate to it in some way - even if it's a small way - in human terms. A road, a hut, a footprint, a bridge - anything that connects our humaneness to the landscape?

What I do know, when looking back through my image library, is that I respond more to an image when it has a human element to it - and that's good enough for me.

Rugby World Cup 2011

2011-09-09T13:26:00.003+12:00

Tonight is the night - the start of Rugby World Cup 2011 here in New Zealand!

Lots of people today wearing black to support New Zealand in the opening match against Tonga. There are even a few brave souls sporting Tongan colours too!

We won't get a lot of traffic from the tournament down this end of the country, but we are still jazzed that it's happening in New Zealand - and of course we are all praying that the mighty All Blacks can do it this year, and win the cup with home-town advantage!

To mark the start, it's been 'wear your colours' day - and so the kids headed off to school dressed in black from head to toe. There's also been a smattering of businesses getting in behind the hype - the most impressive is probably one of the local hotels who have been waving flags around the building for the last few weeks.

The Royal Hotel waving the World Cup flags. 20D & EF-S 18-55mm IS

I'm a huge rugby fan - have been ever since I was a boy and would watch the All Black test matches on tv with my dad. My wife, however - not so much. She surprised me this week though, and asked me if we could watch the opening ceremony and first game together.

So tonight that's what we'll be doing. The whole family will watch the opening ceremony together, and then Joanna and I will watch the mighty All Blacks destroy Tonga! GO BLACK!!!

Canon 75-300mm f4/5.6 USM II

2011-09-09T11:51:00.001+12:00

In my last post I extolled the virtues of the 18-55mm 'kit' lens as a decent all-purpose walk-around lens worthy of keeping on your camera. I also mentioned my intention of getting its companion telephoto, the 55-250mm.

I had my eye on a couple on Trademe (NZ's internet auction site), but was also coming across a few other options in the process. And I should preface all of this by saying that I already own the outstanding Canon 70-200mm f4 'L' which I use on the 5D (and occasionally the 20D) - and which I have absolutely no intention of getting rid of.

So why do I need another telephoto lens? Well, as part of a lighter 'travel' kit, I'm looking for an option that I can put together as a complete package - a two lens, go anywhere kind of kit that I will take away on holidays etc. A lighter lens that I can use with the 20D without its grip attached - with even more reach than the 70-200mm gives me at the moment.

Which leads me to the Canon 55-250mm lens - or variants on a similar theme. My two criteria: light enough to carry around all day and use on the 20D body, with as much 'reach' as possible. So with this in mind, the other lens that kept coming up on Trademe is the 75-300mm in all it's different guises.

Canon have produced more 70 to 'something' telephoto zooms than any other focal length you can name, so you would expect them to have a fairly good handle on producing them by now. And never one to shy away from offering options, whenever they introduce a new 75-300mm lens they always produce a USM motor and non-USM motor model, together with an IS version.

Canon 75-300mm f4/5.6 USM II

The IS model would be great, but is usually at least $400+ more expensive - so it's out of my price range. What I usually try to find is the middle of the three - the USM motor driven model, normally available for only $20 to $30 more than the non USM version. With the 'micro' USM system, autofocusing should be a tad quicker - so that's the model I go for. It's worth saying, however, that optically all three models (of that version) will be identical.

So in looking around on Trademe I found a version II (they're up to version III) USM motor 75-300mm Canon lens (see above) for $140NZ. That's about half what I was going to have to pay for a 55-250mm, and while it means I give up IS - it does give me an extra 50mm reach at the long end. That takes my focal length on the 20D effectively out to 480mm! Now where talkin!!

Of course I've read the reviews on the internet, and for such a 'budget' lens the news isn't all good (depending who you read). Most talk about edge softness throughout the zoom range - and overall softness at the maximum 300mm focal length. Not a brilliant performer then...?

But dig a little deeper - think a little harder - and you might come up with a slightly different 'take' on these reviews. For a start, a good deal of them were written by people shooting film and then looking at their slides/scans at 100%. If that's the case, then all discussions about 'edge' softness become moot when we look at it in the digital era. And indeed, a more recent review of this lens gave two final conclusions - one for a 5D, and one for a 20D. On the 5D - a full frame camera - the lens does exhibit edge softness at all focal lengths. The reviewer didn't recommend the lens for a 5D user. But, on a 20D, where the edges of the lens are always cropped out due to the smaller sensor size, the reviewer saw excellent edge to edge sharpness! And highly recommended the lens for a 20D user. Makes sense to me.

The overall softness at 300mm? Well, that very may well be true - or it might depend on lens variances? When I was a Nikon shooter, I owned the equivalent nikkor lens which also got a bad rap from reviewers at the 300mm end - but I found my lens to be a good performer, even wide open. In fact, one of my favourite images is taken with the Nikkor 75-300mm wide open at full zoom. And it's tack sharp.

I'll reserve judgement until I actually have the lens in my hands (should be next week), and then I'll do some testing. Will post some images and results with the lens when I have them...

Why buy a kit lens?

2011-09-07T14:52:00.000+12:00

Why not?

"Because they are plastic and crappy" would be the general answer.

Ok. Fair enough. But are they really plastic and crappy, or are we just told this by retailers (and lens manufacturers) so that we will upgrade to the better ( and by better they mean more expensive) lenses?

Without getting too far ahead of myself - ultimately when choosing the appropriate lens it's going to be about choosing horses for courses. What do I mean by that? Well, if you are a professional photographer who needs their gear to work flawlessly all day every day, then you're going to want to (have to) pay a premium for the solidly constructed, rugged, weather sealed lenses that cost more than your average car!

But what if you're not a professional? Are you really getting 'better' by spending $600+ more?

I've just bought a Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5/5.6 IS kit lens to use as my walk-around standard lens on the 20D - for the grand total of NZ$160.00. I also plan on getting the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS lens as well, and that will probably cost me about NZ$250.00. So for just over NZ$400 I'll have a light weight, two lens kit, that goes from wide (29mm) to telephoto (400mm) for less than half the price of a new Canon EF 28-135mm IS or Canon EF-S 18-200mm IS, both of which are probably considered 'better' lenses.

Better in what sense though? Better build? OK - maybe. But not by much. Yes, the two kit lenses have plastic lens mounts - so what? The hardened plastic used in lens manufacture has proven itself up to the task, and I'm not going to be changing lenses back and forth a hundred times a day (horses for courses remember).

The fact that these lenses are of plastic construction really doesn't bother me as much as it used to - and in reality you have to spend a lot more (L series quality) to get a lens that isn't made mostly of plastic nowadays.

Okay then - maybe the autofocus system isn't much good on these cheap models? Granted, they don't use the ultra fast, ultra quiet USM systems of the more expensive lenses, with no full-time autofocus over-ride and generally inferior manual focus capabilities. They make a little noise when focusing, usually have the front element or manual focusing ring rotate during focusing, and aren't super-fast constant aperture lenses. But are they also really as bad as they are made out to be?

In all but the most demanding of situations (Formula 1 racing maybe), the speed of the auto focus on these 'cheap' lenses is plenty fast enough. And really, the noise the auto focus motor makes is minimal. I guarantee you that I could use the EF-S 18-55mm at a wedding and never get noticed. The shutter noise of the 5D is way louder than the focusing motor on these lenses. And as for full-time manual focus over-ride... well, I'm sure it's useful for somebody, somewhere, but I've never - repeat NEVER - used it on any of the lenses where it's been available. On modern camera bodies, using even the cheapest of modern lenses, autofocus is amazingly accurate. That's been my experience at least.

So it's got to come down to image quality - right? Time and again I hear enthusiast photographers told to 'upgrade' their kit lenses - as if they've been taking crappy photos for the last year and suddenly all that will change now that they have a 'better' lens. Yet at the same time, many will say that with modern computer aided design, manufacturers no longer make 'bad' lenses. And they'd be right.

I tested the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens against an 'L' series 17-40mm f4 professional lens a year or so back (see the post here) and I was surprised at how close it was in terms of image quality! Yes, the 17-40mm was a tad sharper, with a touch more contrast and a little less colour fringing - but not by a lot. Certainly nothing that a little sharpening and a quick levels adjustment in Photoshop couldn't fix. Yet we're made to feel that if we don't have a $1000 lens slung around our neck then all our images are going to suck!

For the first two years as a freelance wedding photographer, I used Nikon's 18-70mm 'kit' lens that came with the 70D as my main wedding lens (together with the 50mm f1.8 for wide-open portraits), and I never once had a client complain that my images weren't sharp, lacked contrast, or had too much CA. I'm sure I could use Canon's 18-55mm lens in the same way and get equally as good a result.

Now having argued all of the above, I would like to finish by saying that if you're going to pour your money into anything in photography that will make a difference to your images, then pour it in to lenses. What! I thought you said it didn't matter what lens I used!?

No - I didn't actually say that. What I'm trying to say is that the kit lens you own probably isn't as bad as you've been lead to believe it is - and that an incremental jump to a $800 mid-range zoom might not really be worth it.

But what will be worth it, for any photographer, is an investment in fast glass. And by 'fast', I mean constant, fixed aperture lenses that go down to f2.8 or lower. These are usually prime lenses (although fast fixed zooms can be had for crazy prices), and these really will open up a whole new world of photography for you. And they are also an investment. Camera bodies come and go - whereas fast glass often only gets better with age - and tends to hold its price well in the used market. It doesn't have to be horrendously expensive either. A fast 50mm f1.8 will only set you back $150.00 - cheaper than I just bought the kit lens for.

So the next time you think about 'upgrading' your kit lens, have a serious think about whether it's actually worth it - or what you might upgrade to. You may find that it's actually cheaper to keep the kit lens, and buy a 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.8 instead? in my humble opinion this will serve you better than any mid-range zoom for $1000 bucks ever will.

iPhone photo madness!

2011-09-06T16:51:00.000+12:00

There is a lot of talk - crazy, inane talk if you ask me - amongst photographers, about the capabilities of the camera on an iPhone. Camera phones (in general) they say, will soon become good enough (and in fact are already good enough according to many) to obviate the need to carry a point-and-shoot around for serious photography. And while technically, with the very latest iPhone (4) and android smart phones, this may be true in principle, I hope it never actually eventuates in practice.

Why not, you ask? Well, I'm glad you asked. And I'll tell you why not. In the end, for me, it comes down to user experience - and using the appropriate tool for the job. Notice I didn't say 'the best tool', but the 'appropriate' tool. Called me old fashioned (and in some respects I'm sure I am), but when I want to take a photo - even a snap shot - I like to use an actual camera, and not my PHONE.

Removing the cast. 2MP 3G iPhone.

Now I am willing to admit that there are times when it is inconvenient to carry even a small point-and-shoot around, and you want to take a quick snap shot. Like, for example, the image here I took of my daughter having her cast removed at the hospital. I didn't have a point-and-shoot (or SLR) with me, but wanted to get a quick shot of the moment. Out came the iPhone and hey presto - got the shot.

I suppose this follows the 'best camera is the one you have with you' mantra we hear so often nowadays to justify (it seems to me) using your camera phone to take images with. But imagine, just for a second, that you were actually serious about your photography! If that were the case, wouldn't you try to make sure that the best camera you had with you was at least a dedicated point-and-shoot - and maybe even (shock horror) a digital SLR (or the new breed of micro four thirds cameras)? Why should the best camera you have with you, by default, be your camera phone?

Shantytown. 2MP 3G iPhone + Pixlromatic App

By my own admission, I don't have the most up-to-date iPhone. Hence, my 2MP camera phone kinda sucks. Yes, the camera on the new iPhone 4 is much better, clearer, crisper, more resolution etc... So if I had one of these I'd change my mind - right?

Well no, I don't think I would. Because as I stated earlier, I really would much rather the user experience of an actual camera, rather than an add-on to a phone - even if that means having to carry around a camera and a phone! See, I told you I was old fashioned.

This is the same beef I have with digital SLR's and video. Yes, I know they can do video now. And yes, I know you can use all your supercool lenses. And yes, I know that there's no going back and all SLR's from here on out are going to have this functionality built in. But is it really any better/easier/superior to using a dedicated video camera? Again - for me personally (and believe me, I do know that I'm swimming against the tide here), if I want to shoot video, I'd rather use a video camera. A specific tool, for a specific purpose, to achieve a specific job, just makes more sense to me. Crazy, I know.

Princess Theatre, Shantytown. iPhone + Old Photo App

Finally, there's the whole app and social media sharing thing. We all know there are thousands of cool photo apps you can have on your phone that will allow you to instantly modify your masterpiece. And some of them are pretty cool. But OnOne's series of plug-ins for Photoshop are pretty cool too, and also allow you to create some really amazing images. Granted it doesn't cost $1.99 at the app store - but I would also argue that the final result is a little superior :-)

Photo apps for the iPhone have replaced the 'special effects' filters of the Photoshop era. Many a photographer has tried to 'fix' a boring image by applying a water colour filter in photoshop - and the same, I feel, is often true with iPhone camera apps. Both the images of Shantytown above are fairly ordinary - taken at the wrong time of the day under harsh sun, but whip them through an old-timey photo app on the iPhone and viola - you've got yourself some art! Really?

I'll finish my rant on social networking - the other big reason to use your internet-connected, wi-fi protected, spiffy-doo-dah smart phone to take pictures with. Cause guess what - you can share them instantly. That's right folks. Don't hold of tomorrow what you can do today - now - immediately! Snap that crappy photo and have it on your faceblog page quicker than you can say 'google'.

I don't know about you (really, I don't), but I've never taken a photo - even an amazing one that I'm super proud of - and thought "man, I've got to share this NOW or I'll simply explode!"

For photo agencies, news reporters and journalists covering breaking news I can definitely see the benefits of immediate sharing. But for the rest of us? We can probably hold off on showing the whole world pictures of our cat, or our best mate Dave throwing up at his bachelor party. I mean, seriously.

Please don't get me wrong - I love technology as much as the next gear head. Give me a fully kited out digital SLR with the biggest, baddest lens you've got and I'm happier than a pig in mud! And I LOVE my iPhone - as an iPod, email device, and phone. But I really don't subscribe to the 'fit it all in one device' swiss army knife kind of mentality that is starting to pervade the professional ranks of photography. Yes, I know the scissors on a swiss army knife can be used to cut paper - at a pinch. But seriously people... wouldn't you rather use an actual pair of scissors?

The right tool, for the right job. That's all I ask.

PK 2011 Event Photography

2011-08-17T09:10:00.000+12:00

Just got back from shooting in Christchurch at Promise Keepers, a weekend-long christian men's event where I was one of the official photographers. I wrote in my last post about ISO settings for the indoor event - and how I was most likely going to shoot on ISO 1600 all weekend (and this turned out to be the case).

In this post I want to show some of the image from the weekend, and go into the nuts and bolts of shooting the event - a sort of personal de-brief now that the dust has settled (and my feet have recovered).

Sung worship. Canon 5D & 20-35mm

To begin with, lets talk technical. How did I set my cameras up to shoot, what gear did I use, and what did I learn from the exercise?

Well, to start with, I used both of my Canon DSLR's - the 5D and the 20D - and set them up exactly the same. Both were set on centre weighted metering, tungsten white balance, AI Servo auto focus and ISO 1600. I also shot in AV (Aperture mode), wide open for the whole weekend. Both were also set to highest quality jpeg so I could download and hand-off the images instantly, without having to go through RAW conversion software. I decided not to bother with RAW + JPG since I thought I might be shooting a LOT over the course of the weekend and didn't want to have to be dealing with too many Gigs of images.

PK Band. Canon 20D & 70-200mm

The only difference between the two bodies was the inclusion of the vertical grip on the 20D, and the exclusion of a grip on the 5D. Why on one and not the other? The decision had to do with the lenses I decided to use on both cameras (see, there is a method to my madness).

I borrowed a Canon 100mm f2.8 to take because I thought I would need as fast a lens as possible - but at the last minute I also bought along my 70-200mm f4 L. And boy, am I glad I did! When I got to the venue, I set up the 70-200mm on the 20D, effectively giving me a 112 to 320mm f4, and attached this outfit to a monopod for better stabilisation. I found that I was getting anywhere from a 60th to a 125th second shutter speed, depending on the lights, and decided that this was fast enough. It's a big venue - even though I had the run of the place and was told that no where was out-of-bounds for me (except actually on the stage itself of course) - so I opted for reach over speed. Considering I used this set-up about 70 to 80% of the time, I'm happy that I bought the 70-200mm f4 L along.

Lost in Prayer. 5D & 20-35mm

On the 5D I went with the widest lens in my bag, the Canon EF 20-35mm f3.5/4.5, and again, it was another really good choice. With the 20D, long lens and monopod in one hand, I slung the 5D with wide-angle over my shoulder and was good to go. I wanted it to be light and maneuverable with the second camera, hence not attaching the vertical grip, and with my new camera strap (see two posts ago) the 5D and wide-angle stuck at my side all weekend. Don't want to harp on about the whole strap thing, but I really did feel that the 5D was very securely planted on my right shoulder all weekend. I was moving around a lot, and never once felt the camera start to slip off of my shoulder. I know I couldn't say the same thing about the standard canon strap.

I also bought a 50mm f1.8 with me (again, because I thought I might need super-fast glass), but didn't use it. Ditto my 580EX flash.

The wide angle allowed my to get in really close to the crowd and get some very emotive images - as well as step back and get in a sweeping crowd shot to fit in as much as I could of the venue. Both scenarios worked really well.

Ian Grant. 20D & 70-200mm

Most of the images of the speakers were taken using the 70-200mm on the Canon 20D - and most of those at the longest 200mm end. I waited to shoot until a: the speaker looked interesting, and b: the light was good - to give me the best chance of getting a sharp, interesting image. And I shot a lot! Even so, my hit rate was maybe 50/50. I took as many blurry images (normally because of subject movement) as sharp ones - and tried to up this rate by shooting in short bursts (so that at least one would be sharp). This worked very well, and I am very pleased with the amount of keepers I got for each speaker.

The event organisers wanted at least 10 good images of each speaker to choose from - but using the technique above I managed to give them twice as much!

Corridor. Canon 5D & 20-35mm

Of course the whole weekend was dedicated to taking photos for the Promise Keepers organisation - trying to cover all the images that they required. This meant taking wide crowd shots, photos of the speakers, capturing the various group break-outs, as well as getting intimate worship images of fathers and sons, individuals etc. With every shot I took, I had these criteria in the back of my mind. Over the whole weekend, there was only one shot I took for myself - a 'grab' shot that doesn't really fit any of the required categories - and it just happens to be my favorite shot of the weekend.

It's the image above, 'Corridor' and literally was a grab shot I took while going from one room to another. As I was about to go onto the top floor to get some wide crowd shots looking down from above, I spied this group just standing at the end of a long corridor. I swung the 5D to my eye, snapped one shot, and went on to get the photos I was after. This is 'my' shot for the weekend. I love the light, the silhouette, and enigma of this image, and despite it not fitting in with the brief, I'm glad I took it.

Bill Subritzky. Canon 20D & 70-200mm f4L

Finally, an image the definitely does fit the brief, and one of my other favorites from the weekend, is this image of New Zealand's most famous faith healer, Bill Subritzky. Promise Keepers is organised by his two sons, Paul and John, so it was important for me to get some very strong images of their father giving his message. I positioned myself purposefully to include the cross in the image, and waited for Bill to strike an obviously 'religious' pose (which didn't take long).

Overall, the weekend shooting at the Christchurch Promise Keepers event was incredibly positive - and fun. I was nervous going in to it since it was such an unknown quantity (photographically speaking), but it turns out I needn't have worried. I got some fantastic images that the PK event team are thrilled with, and at the end of the day that was all I wanted to achieve. I was very sore by the end of it (I have a problem with my ankles if I stand for too long), but looking back over the photos, the pain was worth it.

Even though I enjoyed the experience, it might be a while before I do it again. Next year I'm going to take my son Joshua to Promise Keepers to actually sit and be part of the crowd. He'll be 11, and old enough to take part in one of the break-out groups for young boys. He's very excited about going, and so am I. Only one year to wait! :-)

Canon 5D at ISO 1600

2011-08-09T17:24:00.000+12:00

This weekend I'm off to Christchurch to attend Promise Keepers - a christian men's event that runs from friday through to saturday night. It will be the fourth time I've attended the event (there are different speakers and a new theme every year), although this time it will be very different - I'm one of the official photographers for the event!

I'm very excited about this because I think that it will be a: challenging, b: rewarding and c: fun (hopefully). In preparation for shooting the event, I've read up a little on concert/stage photography (although there are conflicting views and it's nothing I couldn't have figured out for myself), and bought a manfrotto monopod head to use with my 5D and 70-200mm f4 L.

Of course I'm taking the 5D, as well as the 20D with an assortment of lenses. There will be no flash during the presentations, but I'll take one anyway since I may get to use it during the breaks for group shots etc. I will also need to take my laptop for burning CD's and maybe for some quick editing? The event organisers would like as many images as possible supplied immediately - although there may also be the option of taking the files away and working on them for supply at a later date.

I know the venue reasonably well, and am happy that there will be plenty of room for me to work in. I can probably get as close to the stage as I like without actually getting on it(!) - so I may not even need to use the 70-200mm a lot? I'm actually thinking of using my 50mm f1.8 on the 20D (giving me a 75mm f1.8 effectively) for stage shots when the presenters are doing their thing, together with the 20-35mm f3.5/4.5 on the 5D for wide angle shots of the crowd, band etc? Then of course there's the 28-135mm IS lens on the 5D if I want a 'one lens fits all' kind of approach - and finally the 70-200mm f4L on either the 5D or 20D, depending on how much 'reach' I need?

Canon 5D @ ISO 1600

Having never really pushed the 5D in terms of high ISO's, I figured I had better do an 'experiment' before next weekend to see how comfortable I would be shooting at max ISO (which is 1600 for both the 5D and 20D without using the 'extra' high setting to go to 3200 on the 5D).

I simply focused on a dark area of my daughters bedroom - giving me both highlight and shadow detail - and made a shot at all the different ISO settings, up to the 1600 max. I then gave all the files identical processing in terms of sharpening, levels and curves adjustments, and then zoomed in to 100% to examine the results.

Without going in to too much detail, I'm very happy with the high ISO results the 5D gives, and won't have any worries shooting all weekend maxed out at 1600 if I have to.

The results above probably don't show up all that well on the internet - they probably all look much of a muchness? Even clicking on them for a bigger look probably doesn't help much - although you're more than welcome to do so :-) Yes, there's noise there - of course there is. But it's not horrible, and there is still lots of detail as well. This is, after all, a full-frame sensor with a very large pixel size, so the detail isn't turning to mush (like it will with many compact digitals).

So really, what it does say, is that the high ISO performance of the 5D (and also the 20D which is said to be comparable in all the reviews I've read), is very good - and nothing to worry about. No, it won't be as good as the 5D MkII, or recent 7D, or even the new 60D - but it's good enough for me. Especially if I put the really good images through a noise reduction program later on when I can edit at my leisure. But even without it, they will be fine.

ISO 1600 should be enough to give me shutter speeds of around 125th sec when under the bright stage lights, especially if I can use the 50mm f1.8. It will be a different story when I turn around and shoot the crowds, but the monopod should help me to get steady shots - even around 15th or 10th of a second. Hopefully I can get the crowd to stay still for that long? :-)

Get a new Strap!

2011-08-01T16:40:00.000+12:00

Hands up those who are using the supplied strap that came with your camera?

Yeah, I thought so. That would be most of us - right?

'Hey buddy, there's nothing wrong with the strap that came with my camera' I hear you say. 'It's got a cool Canon/Nikon/Sony etc logo on it - say's 'Digital' on there somewhere, and is in the company's trendy colours. What more could you want!'

How about comfort? How about extra features like cushioning and grip? Think they might make a difference when you're talking about supporting a 2kg+ load of camera gear around your neck for a day? You betcha. And these are the features that you don't get with the camera strap that comes with your digital SLR - even the Pro bodies that cost megabucks.

My new Kaiser (made in Germany) camera strap for the Canon 5D.
Unfortunately the Leica doesn't come with the strap.

If you've never used any other strap on your camera than the one supplied by the manufacturer, then you owe it to yourself to make a change. I guarantee you will wonder why you put up with the crappy supplied one for so long!

There are myriad number of camera straps available as an alternative, and like anything to do with photography, you can spend as little - or as much - as you like.

Straps like the 'Black Rapid' have become very trendy with 'pro' photographers, but even going to a very basic cushioned neoprene style camera strap will totally revolutionise your camera-toting experience. I finally decided to change the supplied camera strap on my 5D (which is a pretty hefty camera, especially with the vertical grip attached), and opted for a 'Kaiser Pro Camera Strap'. It wasn't very expensive - only $25NZ - but makes a huge difference when carrying the 5D around the neck or on the shoulder - and has a few extra features over the Canon bog-standard strap.

No, it doesn't have a big 'CANON' logo on it - and guess what - I think that's a good thing. It's obviously attached to a big Canon camera, but it doesn't scream at you from across the room "hey look at me, I'm a Canon camera". It's just black, with no big expensive looking logos across the neck - just a couple of very discreet 'Kaiser' logos on the side.

What it is, is cushioned (mmmm...) and made of neoprene which is much more slip-resistant than the standard material type. I'm forever hitching my camera back over my shoulder if I use the supplied strap - but not so with a decent strap. And don't dismiss that cushioning. It really does make a great difference - more so the heavier your camera is.

Maybe it's not very sexy? Maybe it's not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of 'upgrading' your camera, and it's probably not top of your list of 'must have' camera gear. But that's a shame - because maybe it should be at the very top of your list! As I said, you don't have to spend too much money to get an infinitely superior product to what you're using at the moment. And once you've used a decent strap, you'll never go back to the supplied straps ever again. Promise.

100th Post and HDR!

2011-05-26T22:33:00.000+12:00

According to blogger, this is my 100th post! Yippeee!!!

Over the last few days I've been using HDR software, with an eye to writing a review/article for publication. I've pitched the idea at a couple of editors, but they haven't gotten back to me yet. But it's early days.

I have stayed clear of HDR (High Dynamic Range) Software in the past, but have grown increasingly more interested in what is out there. As someone who uses Photoshop extensively, I'm certainly not adverse to manipulating pixels for a HDR 'look'. Yet until relatively recently, the options were limited. But in the last year some major software developers have released HDR programs (including Adobe with CS5), so I figured it might be time to see for myself what all the fuss is about.

'True' HDR uses a range of exposures (at least three and up to five) that expose for both highlight and shadow detail. These are then 'blended' (more correctly referred to as Tone Mapping) together to create one HDR exposure. Some argue this is cheating. Others claim it better represents what our eye actually sees when we take a photograph. I don't know that I quite agree with either side of the debate - and I'm not sure I care. It's my photo, and I'll do what I want with it, thank you very much. And if that means HDR, then so be it.

Anyway - you can also create an HDR image with just one RAW photo - and that's what I'm going to show here in this post.

First - the original image, as captured. Yes, its a little dark - and so that's why I used it, to see what these HDR programs could get out of it.

Original image - as shot.

To get the ball rolling, I downloaded the 'grandaddy' of all HDR programs - the one that started it all - Photomatix. Anyone who has played around with HDR has probably used Photomatix at some stage, and it remains a strong player in the market.

Processed with Photomatix

As you can see, it does a good job of pulling detail out of the shadows, but retaining it in the highlights, while adding that HDR 'punch' that this process is (infamously) known for. It is only a small program (7MB) compared with some of the others, and doesn't offer as many pre-defined styles or tweakable sliders, but there is enough, and I really liked the result I got using Photomatix. So far so good.

As a side note: I downloaded trial versions of the software discussed here - bar one (which was a free, but limited program). Photomatix is the only company that insists on placing a watermark over the image until you purchase the full product. Boo hiss. Shame on you Photomatix!

Anyway, onwards and upwards.

Next is HDR Efex Pro, from Nik Software - a giant in the software plug-in industry. I was very excited about this product, and was expecting big things. They pioneered 'U-Point' technology that I first saw in Capture NX software for Nikon cameras, and with big names like Tony Corbell behind them, I hoped it would be a winner.

Processed with HDR Efex Pro

Efex Pro certainly goes all out with its pre-sets and styles to give you the HDR look, which it achieves often at the sake of detail. Try as I might, I couldn't get any detail out of the trees at top left of the image - which wasn't an issue with any of the other programs I tested. Having said that, I like the dramatic look you get using HDR Efex Pro, even though I struggled to get the detail I wanted out of it - even with U-Point technology.

Third on the list is HDR Express, touted as giving a more realistic HDR look to its Tone Mapping algorithms.

Processed with HDR Express

I processed the image using a 'Cool' pre-set, simply because I liked to look. True to its marketing hype, all the set styles looked more natural as a starting point than you get from HDR Efex Pro. It also has fewer sliders or style options, but I found this a good thing. Results can be tweaked, but there is no doubt that HDR Express gives a more subdued HDR result that Nik's offering. Depends what you are after.

And finally, I checked out a FREE application specifically for Mac users - HDRtist. As files go, it's even smaller than Photomatix (5MB), and has basically no options whatsoever - save for a 'Strength' slider. Surprisingly, though, it actually did a pretty decent job - especially for FREE.

Processed with HDRtist

You can spend a little more (US$29.99) for the PRO version, which does give you styles and sliders so you can customise the look. And considering it is at least US$60 cheaper than the other offerings, might be worthwhile if you only wanted to do HDR very infrequently. It definitely works, and has to get the 'bargain' award for HDR software if nothing else.

Which do you like? What would suit your needs or budget? If you like a more natural HDR effect, then HDR Express might be fore you. Looking for something more gutsy and in-your-face for your images? Check out Nik Software's HDR Efex Pro. Want to use the tried and true software that started it all - and produces really great results - look no further than Photomatix. Then, of course, there's HDRtist for FREE if you use a Mac - and there are certainly others out there for you poor Windows users. So, something for everyone.

More importantly, I've discovered that converting images to HDR is a lot of fun? Of course you can do what I did, and try them all for free (trial versions range from 15 days to 1 month). I'm sure you will create some truly stunning images with any of these programs. I know I did.

Decisions, decisions. For me, the question remains. Which one will I choose...?

First shots with Canon Powershot G6

2011-05-12T20:01:00.000+12:00

It was overcast, but not raining, at lunchtime today - so I decided to go for a walk down at the wharf with my G6.

I wanted to get the feel for using it for my style of shooting; playing with the exposure value dial, using the lcd screen or optical viewfinder, reviewing, deleting etc. Basically just getting used to how the G6 operates.

I fumbled around for a little while getting used to button placement, but on the whole the camera is set up very intuitively.

Exposure compensation is a feature I use for almost every shot - even though I also shoot in RAW. I appreciate that RAW gives you a little exposure latitude, but I still like to nail it on every exposure as much as possible. I do this by viewing the shot on the lcd screen and checking the histogram (not the jpeg image on the screen), and then moving the exposure compensation up or down as necessary. The G6 makes this pretty easy, with the exposure compensation function (+/-) built right into the main selector pad. A quick flick up and you access the exposure compensation screen, flick left or right to add or subtract exposure, and flick up again to make it all go away so you can take the shot. Easy.

Although I normally prefer to hold a camera up to my eye, with the G6 (and almost all other compacts for that matter), using the lcd screen to compose is really the better way to go. The optical viewfinder is only 80% of view, and isn't easy to compose critically with. Whereas the lcd screen is 100% of the final image. And with the flip-out screen and reasonably large 2" monitor, it is quite nice to use. I am, however, painfully aware of the camera shaking when it's being held out away from my body - and the G6 doesn't have stabilisation. So I kept an eye on shutter speeds and made sure that they didn't fall lower than I thought I could manage. Reviewing the images from the shoot I seem to have gotten this right - no blurry photos, even though often times the boats were rocking slightly in the water.

And speaking of hand holding the G6, I find it easier to do with the lens adapter tube attached. It gives a nice solid 'lens' barrel to hold on to, while the lens is free to zoom around inside. It also allows me use a UV filter on the front - and of course a polarising filter or other filters if needed.

The G6 also has a built in ND (neutral density) filter that you can turn on whenever you feel the need to lower the shutter speed or lighting values. I turned it on for a few shots, but it didn't really have that much of an affect. I will wait until I have a waterfall or other classic subject to try this feature out a bit more. Should be handy though. Would have been even greater if it could somehow have been graduated :-) Now that would be handy.

Even though it was overcast lighting, the G6 sensor has produced strong colours and heaps of detail. I kept the ISO at 50, although I'm sure pushing it to 200 wouldn't have hurt either. I have played a little in photoshop with the images you see here, but not a lot. No more than I would with an image from any of my digital SLRs.

Overall I had fun with the G6 today. And isn't that the main reason to take photos for yourself - for the fun of it?! Of course the image quality matters, and fortunately the G6 has fantastic image quality with its 7.1MP sensor and high quality 35-140mm lens. I'm looking forward to using it more often.

Canon G6 Converters

2011-05-11T22:10:00.000+12:00

The Canon Powershot G6 arrived today and I'm very pleased with its overall condition.

I was keen to get a Canon G series camera because of their handling, image quality, ease of use and features. I used a G2 about 10 years ago and loved it. I've wanted another ever since. I was especially keen to get this G6, because it also came with wide and telephoto conversion lenses.

The lenses are from Opteka, and simply screw on to the front of the adapter tube that can stay on the G6 at all times. The tube allows the use of 52mm filters or, of course, the lenses.

So what sort of difference do they make? I fitted the adapter on the G6, placed the wide conversion lens on, and took some images to find out.

First, without the wide angle, the lens on the G6 goes down to 35mm. This is what it looks like.

So what happens when you put the wide conversion lens on with the adapter...?

Oops. At the extreme wide end it gets, well, extreme. You can see the adapter tube showing at the corners - not really a good look. Don't know if this happens with the official Canon wide angle conversion lens - but it certainly does with the Opteka brand. You can crop in a little, and still get a wider image than you get without using it. Looks like this...

Even cropped, the image is probably still around the 28mm mark, and is obviously wider than the wide end of the G6 without the adapter.

If you zoom in a little so that the adapter edges go away, you get this...

Probably around the 30mm mark. Wider than the G6 lens, but not super wide. Don't know if I'd bother pulling it out and using it on a regular basis, but if you need to get a little wider it's good to know it's there.

The same is true for the telephoto converter. Without the adapter lens the Canon lens goes to 145mm. This is how close it got me without changing my position for the wide angle shots.

When I attached the Opteka telephoto and kept it at the greatest telephoto setting, this is what I got...

Is it closer - yes. Is it remarkably closer - nah. Again, it works - but... Not sure it's going to find me reaching for the teleconverter for this kind of result.

So all-in-all, even though I was excited about the possibilities the wide and tele converters would afford me, the actual results with the Opteka converters are less than impressive. I'll hopefully get outside this weekend and have a better play. But initial results ain't that impressive.

I am happy with the G6 though. Great little camera with a stellar lens, and really good image quality from a compact sensor. Looking forward to capturing some great travel images with it.

Canon Powershot G6

2011-05-06T15:55:00.000+12:00

Yes, I do know my numerals, and can tell a 3 from a 6. The Powershot G3 that I won on Trademe arrived in the post the other day - and long story short - it doesn't work!

Still not sure whether I should be annoyed by this, or chalk another one up to a learning experience? Upon reflection, I probably didn't ask enough questions about the G3, since the seller did state there was an issue - but they 'presumed' the issue was with the CF card, and not the camera itself.

Never presume. Ever.

I presumed they were right, and it would just need a new CF card. I was wrong, and so were they.

So I now have a useless G3 (turns on, but doesn't write to the card - it shuts down giving an E52 error), and I'm not quite sure how much I can push the 'you didn't tell me' line of enquiry with the seller? I have emailed them to let them know that the camera still doesn't work with another Cf card, and I guess we'll take it from there.

It does mean, however, that I come away from the experience a little wiser - no matter the outcome - but still without a Canon G series compact.... or do I?

Never one to muck around, and, watching many other camera auctions as is my want, I had been following an auction for a G6 (in mint condition), with both tele and wide converter lenses that looked like it might go for a very good (i.e. low) price. And I was right. Because I won it! For a very good price.

So it's out with the G3 (even if I end up cutting my losses and keeping it) and in with the G6. And I'm pretty pleased about that.

The Canon G6 is an 'almost' doubling of megapixels (from 4 to 7.1) which will give great A3 sized prints (again, more than enough for me), with the same excellent lens that was on the G3 (and G5). But this time I get both the wide and teleconverter lenses with it as well! For not much more than I paid for the G3 in the first instance! Bonus!!

The G6 also increases the screen from a 1.8" to a 2" (with the same resolution), and uses the same battery as my 20D and 5D - very handy indeed.

ISOs remain at 50 to 400, although a test I saw recently rated them more like 100 to 640, with excellent noise control despite the larger megapixel rating.

Button placement has been fiddled with for better ergonomics, and the G6 is lighter and smaller than both the G3 and G5 that it replaces.

Actual G6 from auction with conversion lenses

But what I am most excited about with the G6 is getting the accessory lenses included with the auction.
Above we see the telephoto lens on the left which takes the focal distance up to 245mm (from 140mm) and the wide angle lens on the right that takes the lens down to 24.5mm (from 35mm). The conversion adapter required for both lenses to fit also has a filter thread allowing for the use of 58mm filters.

Add to this the ability to use my 420EX flash in full ETTL mode, and I'll have an instant 'compact' kit.

I realise that it's not as 'compact' as today's offerings, but I actually like that fact. I don't like my compact cameras to be too small, because then they become too light and tricky to stabilize (even with built in stabilization). I like a little bit of 'beef' to a camera. Gives me something to hang on to. But that's just me.

So the instant demise of the G3 may turn out to have been a blessing in disguise. I have a feeling the G6 and I will become very good friends. :-) Can't wait.

Stop the upgrade madness

2011-05-02T17:24:00.000+12:00

A couple of posts ago I outlined my recent Canon gear purchases, and also talked about the Powershot G3 that's due any day now. In deciding on the G3 I visited a few internet review sites, watched some videos on YouTube, and read through some (admittedly old) user reviews.

One comment that struck me was posted by someone responding to a very positive review of the G3 and it went something along the lines of: "I can't believe you use that camera anymore. What a brick!"

I laughed about this at the time and treated it as just another inane comment from an opinionated internet idiot who loves the sound of his own voice. But later it did get me thinking - about the decisions I have made with my recent camera purchases, and about the prevailing views on technology and using the 'latest and greatest'.

My 'old' Canon Kit. The newest camera is still 6 years old!

I'll let you in on a little secret - but don't tell anyone. The digital camera you are using now won't stop working when the newer model comes out. I know - amazing, right!?

Think about what you really need a camera for. Ask yourself some serious questions about your photography and the tools you require to create the images you want/need to create. Do you print bigger than 8x10" prints - ever? That's an important question. Because if you don't, then you really don't need anything more than about 4 megapixels. Especially if, like me, you tend to compose 'in-camera' and hardly ever crop your images in any serious manner.

If you don't need much more than 4 or 6 megapixels, then you can start to save yourself some serious money. The mid to late 2000's saw the megapixel wars, where changes to most cameras were only related to the sensor size. Almost everything else stayed the same (maybe a slightly bigger lcd screen, or slightly larger buffer - but most reviewers talked about 'evolutionary' rather than 'revolutionary' changes). So the differences between the Canon 20D and the 50D in respect to Image Quality, is arguably negligible for someone who will print at most to 8x12 (A3) sizes. Yet the difference in price between the two on the used market is substantial.

OK, if you need Live View, or a 3" lcd screen, or ISO's up to 6400 then yes, you'll need to 'upgrade' to the 50D. But do you really need those things? Photographers worked for decades without ever needing Live View on their cameras. Heck, I had it on my Nikon D300 and honestly never ever used it. Not once. I will admit that the 3" lcd on the D300 is nice to look at, but again, do you really need it!? We were happy 6 years ago with a 1.8" or 2" lcd screen, and I don't believe for a second that our images suffered because we only had 1.8" lcd screens, or that we immediately became better photographers because we suddenly got 3" lcd screens. In fact, you could almost argue the opposite. Photographer's who rely on their lcd screens for their exposure are simply asking for trouble! Yes, the 1.8" lcd on the 20D is small, but it's not un-useable. And it's more than enough for a quick check of the histogram (which is what you should be using the lcd screen for) to get your exposures right so you can concentrate on what really matters, composing the image.

But what about ISO? It's true that the megapixel war has now been replaced by the high ISO war. Who cares about how many megapixels we've got, as long as we can shoot noise-free at ISO 64 million - right? Well, again, maybe there are some photographers who make their living shooting portraits down a coal mine, using natural light, who need ISO 64 million. But what about the rest of us?

In the good old/bad old days of film, ISO 400 made photographers sweat and ISO 800 was unusual. Yet now we complain if we don't shoot at 800 noise-free all the time. And what about that whole noise-free thing anyway? I have never had a client look at any of my images and tell me that they loved the smile on their Grandmothers face, but hated the noise in the image! I'll let you in on another dirty little secret - the average joe (your clients) don't even know about noise! Only photographers do. And trust me - only photographers care!

At ISO 400 my 20D and 5D create fantastic images with the barest hint of noise - easily fixed in Noise Ninja if I felt that way inclined. Even the Powershot G3 shoots fine at ISO400 - its highest ISO setting. Want my advice? Don't sweat the ISO thing. Even if your camera goes up to ISO 64 million, please shoot at the lowest ISO you can, and if you need to add more light. Yes, that's right, learn to use your speedlites! Don't give me that "I only shoot natural light because I'm an arteest" line of rubbish. That's just code for "I'm too lazy to learn how to use my flash properly."

Chase Jarvis told us all to shoot with the camera you have with you. This is great advice - but I still get the feeling that we are made to think that what we have with us needs to be the latest and the greatest. When the Canon G3 came out in 2002, it was the latest and the greatest. People drooled over it, reviewers glowed and users waxed lyrical. And yet nine years later opinionated internet flatheads will claim that "I can't believe you use that anymore".

What changed? Obviously not the camera. Sensors got bigger (do you need bigger), ISO's got higher, lcd screens got larger, and processors got quicker. All nice changes. But changes that are necessary for creating better images? I think not.

And now we have HD video in our DSLR's that we need. Don't get me started on that! All I'm going to say about HD video on DSLR's is that if video is really important to you, buy a dedicated video recorder and NOT a digital SLR. Nuff said.

Finally I want to say this. PLEASE, if you are thinking about 'upgrading' because you need x,y or z, STOP and ask yourself some really serious questions. Do you really need those features that you're upgrading for? Are you a photographer or a techno junkie? Think about it - and then go and buy some nice glass. That's what really makes a difference to your images.

To plug-in or not to plug-in

2011-04-28T13:13:00.000+12:00

That is the question.

Lots of photographers will say that using plug-ins to process your images is cheating.

Cheating what, exactly, I'm not sure? Cheating reality? Well, duh. But who ever said photography had to be about reality? Photographers have been cheating reality in the darkroom almost since photography began. Dodging, burning, hand-tinting - heck, even shooting in Black and White is cheating reality.

From my perspective, Photoshop plug-ins are an artistic tool, to be used by the individual as they see fit. Yes, sometimes people go overboard, and a style can get done to death (everybody say HDR). And No, a filter or an effect is not a substitute for a good image to begin with. But it can also help turn a reasonably drab image into a more pleasing one.

Often it also comes down to what the image is going to be used for, and who is going to use it. Some competitions have strict rules around any form of 'manipulation', while others let you go for it to your hearts content. Most magazines, however, will want untouched images so that their own graphic department can start from scratch - unless of course it's a photography magazine showcasing your own, finished, work.

I've used Photoshop since version 3 (or there abouts) and have been guilty of over-processing one or two images in my time. But that is also how you begin to learn when enough is enough. All artists go through this. And yes, that does mean I consider photography to be an art form. Of course it is.

My favourite suite of Plug-ins comes from onOne Software - PhotoTools Professional. They have a great range of one-click Photoshop presets that you can apply as single effects, or mix and match to create individual looks. Most looks are controllable from within PhotoTools, varying the degree of the effect before you apply them and export back into Photoshop on its own layer. I use single effects all the time in my wedding work, and they really do speed up the overall workflow.

Case-in-point today, when a file arrived at my in-box from a client who asked me to 'fix' the attached image and 'make it look more moody etc' (they were his exact words).

Original photo as supplied for 'fixing'

Rather than spend a lot of time in Photoshop, I decided to see what I could get out of onOne's PhotoTools suite. I did a basic curves adjustment in Photoshop to boost the shadows, and then exported the image to PhotoTools from within Photoshop itself.

And the final result using PhotoTools Plugins

I went to the Landscape section of the suite and clicked "Overall colour boost", then a "Landscape enhance" and I was basically done! Played with the strength settings of both effects until I was happy, and then hit the "Apply" button. Easy peasy - and a much better result. A quick trip through Noise Ninja, a slight vignette applied in Photoshop and bam - job done. Total time taken? About 5 minutes.

Yes, I could have done everything from within Photoshop, but that 5 minutes would have turned into 15 or 20. And time, as they say, is money.

Travelling Companion - Canon G3

2011-04-27T13:41:00.000+12:00

I've well and truly moved back into the Canon camp with all my recent purchases and total kit rethink. So the final piece of the puzzle had to come in the form of what 'compact' camera I chose to use.

As a Canon user, I've always had a soft spot for their 'G' series of 'compact' cameras, since buying one for the art gallery I was director of around 10 years ago. (Oops. hang on a second. I'm not sure that 'spot' and 'G' should go together in the same sentence, should they? Anyway, I digress.) :-)

They are solid, reliable, full-featured digital compacts designed with the serious photographer in mind - and have been marketed as such by Canon from day one.

The series is now headed by the G12 - and as nice as it would be to own one, my ever decreasing budget won't allow it.

The last time I looked into the G series seriously, for a friend considering a compact digital camera purchase, was when the G5 was first released in about 2004. I also recall that they did eventually buy one, and I was hugely jealous. As the top of the line 'G' model at the time, they weren't cheap - costing about the same as an entry level DSLR (and the current top models still do). So I couldn't really justify getting one too.

But given that was seven years ago, you've gotta think that the prices on the G5 have come down! And you'd be right. On the used market they are going for about $250NZ. So now might just be the time for me to get one?

So in preparation I did what we all do when considering a 'new' camera purchase, I Googled it on the internet. And not surprisingly, there are lots of reviews on the G5 - most of them glowing. It's a well spec'd 5MP compact, solidly built, with a great lens and RAW shooting capabilities. I'm in - right?

Well, a little further reading seemed to suggest that actually, pound for pound, and with image quality taken into consideration, the G3 might actually be the better camera to go for. Why?

It seems that seven or eight years ago, not surprisingly, sensor development was in its infancy, and the move from 4MP in the G3 to 5MP in the G5 created a lot more noise than people were expecting, especially when you consider the negligible increase that 1MP makes. So as a 4MP camera, the G3 was considered by many to have the better image quality.

Others claim they also prefer the more snappy, punchy colours you get from the G3. The G5 seems to render more 'neutral' colours straight out of the box (although this is no big deal in todays age of post-processing).

Compared side to side, and spec to spec, the only difference seems to be the 4 v 5MP sensor - otherwise the cameras are basically identical.

So for even less that half the price of a G5 on the used market, I got a G3 instead.

Yes, it's a nine year old camera. But so is my 20D (roughly). These cameras don't stop working just because they get surpassed by 'newer' technology. And sometimes, as in the case of the G5, it would seem than 'newer' doesn't always mean better?

At ISO 50 (its lowest ISO setting), the G3 will produce noise-free images. And even at ISO 400 (its highest ISO), there's nothing there that Noise Ninja can't fix. Yes, it was a developmental period for camera sensors, so no, they are not as 'sensitive' at low levels as todays crop of cameras are. But that also means that they didn't push it as much with the ISO's as todays cameras do, so you get truly useable results at the highest ISO.

We are planning a family vacation to Melbourne, Australia for later this year. I'm hoping to take a photography course or day long tour when I'm over there, so will take the 5D and lenses/flash in my Lowepro backpack. But I will also want to carry around a camera with me for the rest of the time for family shots that we can put in an album as 6x4s. I think the Canon G3 will fit the bill perfectly.

I'm a photographer - so I'm a control freak - even with my snapshots. I want to shoot RAW, and I want to tweak exposure etc. Canon's 'G' series is perfect for guys like... me.

My Canon Camera Kit

2011-04-27T12:26:00.001+12:00

Well it's now complete - and it's (mostly) all Canon. And with winter on its way, it will give me time to get to grips with all the gear, to see if I've made the right decisions or whether I need to tweak lens selection etc.

Here it is - the whole Canon kit.

Running down the list we have:

1) Slik PRO700DX Tripod. Although listed first, this is actually my last acquisition. I have had a set of dodgy Chinese knock-off tripod legs for a few years, and have finally got sick of tightening legs or struggling with locks constantly. So the Slik Pro700DX is a much needed addition to my new kit.

2) Lowepro Slingshot 200AW. A bit of an impulse buy when a local store was having 30% off camera bags - although I'm very glad that I bought it. Will carry my back-up body, lens and flash easily, with room for a couple other lenses. Well designed 'slingshot' style backpack that I will also use as a day-pack when I don't want to carry around the full arsenal with me.

3) Canon 20D with EF 28-105mm f3.5/4.5 USM. My back-up body. 8MP shooting at 5 fps. I will also use this for sports when I need the faster frame rate and the extra x1.6 reach that the smaller sensor gives. Has a vertical grip attached with two batteries and is loaded with an 8Gig Kingston card.

4) Canon 5D with EF 28-135mm f3.5/5.6 IS USM. My main camera body with a full-frame sensor. Will use it for everything from portraits and weddings to landscapes. The 28-135mm is an image stabilised lens that should make a perfect 'walk about' lens for the 5D. Both the 5D and 20D have a near identical menu system and button layout which will make a for a seamless transition between the two cameras.

5) Canon EF 20-35mm f3.5/4.5 USM. Purchased as my landscape 'ultra-wide' angle lens for the 5D. Makes little or no sense to use it on the 20D since with the x1.6 factor it becomes a strange 32-56mm lens? Will also get some use at weddings when I need to go wider for larger groups and family formals.

6) Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II. Everyone needs a fast 50 in their kit. The 50mm will get a lot of action on both the 5D (where it makes a great low-light 'normal' lens) and the 20D, for an amazing telephoto portrait lens (equating to an 80mm f1.8).

7) Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM. Picked this up for a crazy good price, and is another lens that will get a lot of action on both camera bodies. I will take it with me on weddings to use with the 5D, especially for individual head shots and images of the couple together - but it will also go with the 20D as my 'sports' lens for netball, hockey, speedway etc - where the effective focal range becomes a 112-320mm. Later I may even consider picking up a 1.4x extender to use with this lens to give me a 450mm f5.6 optic!

8) Phottix Strato Wireless triggers. With the 5D and 20D I don't have the same 'wireless' flash capabilities that I had with my Nikon gear, so the Phottix wireless trigger system fills that gap. Although they are a Chinese made system, they get rave reviews from eveyone who uses them - even when compared to the likes of Pocket Wizard.

9) Canon 420EX Speedlite. Got this pretty cheap. It was actually the first item I purchased when I knew the 5D was going to be fixed - since the 5D has no in-built flash. It's an ok flash, but will only work in full auto (ETTL). Does have a slave mode though. Will stay in the bag with my 20D as a back-up flash.

10) Canon 580EX Speedlite. The 'daddy' of Canon flash units (although it's been replaced by the 580EX II), this will be my main flash unit. Although it can work as a Master, it needs to be attached to the camera to do so. Mostly it will be used with the 5D, together with the Strato's triggers, for both off and on-camera flash at weddings etc.

11) Canon RS80N3 Remote Switch (not shown). Forgot to include this in the image, but this remote release rounds out my Canon kit. Works with the 5D to facilitate hands-free triggering of the shutter. Got it for an insanely low price on Trademe. Don't think the guy selling it even knew what it was for?

And there you have it. My 'new' Canon Kit. All that remains now is for me to get out there and use it! I'm actually looking forward to this winter :-)

Kit coming together

2011-04-12T23:33:00.000+12:00

My 'new' DSLR kit is coming together nicely. In fact, I think I'm done! (Yeah, right. Are we ever fully finished with GAS: 'Gear Acquisition Syndrome')?

The Canon 20D arrived today, and I had also purchased a vertical grip for it (from Progear in Auckland). The grip for the 5D arrived last week too - all the way from Adorama in the USA. Took about a week to get here - not too bad. And it's in exceptional, 'as new' condition - as is the one for the 20D. So I'm very happy with the two bodies.

Emily calling for the pass
Canon 5D with 28-135mm @f5.6

Talked last post about getting the 28-135mm IS lens, which has also now arrived. I tried it out this weekend at one of Emily's netball games, and it performed OK - but I could have done with a little more 'reach'. And f5.6 at the telephoto end is a little closed down to produce a blurred out background. It's not so bad if you can manage some subject isolation, but as seen here, the background is still a bit too detailed.

I didn't, however, buy it as a sports lens - I got it primarily for weddings - to shoot the service, group formals etc, and for that purpose I see it as being ideally suited for the job. As well as being a great walk-around lens for the 5D.

I will probably shoot a bit of netball this season, and may even get into doing some Speedway photography (it's almost a stone's throw from my back door), so to that end I've gone and got another lens - a Canon 70-200mm f4L.

I've owned this before, and it's a great lens. My friend Nicky has the f2.8 version, which I can probably borrow for weddings etc., so I 'ummed and ahhed' over getting this for myself. But in the end the price was right and I figured that I'm not always going to be able to use other people's lenses, so I've gone for this one for myself. Yes, the f2.8 version would have been nice - but it also would have been 6 times more expensive. And I'm not too concerned about the IS version either. I've got it for an outdoor sports lens, to be used in good light, so the IS isn't that important to me. It's a light enough lens to hand-hold at the 200mm end comfortably as well, although I have also purchased a third-party tripod ring for it since it doesn't come with one as standard.

And finally, to round off my kit, I've got a 580EX flash coming via Trademe this week as well :-)

I've got a buyer lined up for my Nikon SB900, so with the money I'm getting from the sale of one, I'm using to purchase the other! The 420EX I have already is a pretty basic - all automatic - flash, although it does a great job. But the 580EX will just give me so many more options - especially when used as a Master in conjunction with the 420EX (which can be used as a 'slave').

Opens up good possibilities for experimentation with multiple strobes. Could be a long and productive winter getting used to all this gear :-)

Great fun.

First/Last Wedding with Canon 5D

2011-04-03T13:11:00.000+12:00

Yesterday I shot my first wedding with my repaired 5D - which just happened to be my last wedding for this 2010/11 season (hence the confusing title).

And I've got to say that I really enjoyed using the Canon 5D again. Switching ISO, EV and Apertures on the fly went relatively smoothly. I didn't fumble with switches or settings too often and looking through my set of images after the shoot the exposures look fairly consistent.

Train at Shantytown.
Canon 5D and 28-105mm @f8

The wedding was at Shantytown - a local historic park that is a very popular wedding venue. They have their own (small, dark) church, although another popular option is to get married outside. My couple (Diane and Paul) got married in the church - which at this time of year (early Autumn) at 4.00pm makes for a very dark interior. I got there early to check light levels and with my 28-105mm lens attached I was managing to get about 1/30th sec at f3.5 on ISO 640.

Why ISO 640? Well, I read somewhere (and heard recently on Scott Bourne's Photofocus podcast), that Canon sensors run smoother in multiples of 160. So rather than setting it at ISO100 - ISO160 is actually more noise-free? Which also means 320 is cleaner than 200, and 640 is cleaner than 400! Go figure.

Anyway, I decided that I wanted to have the versatility of my 28-105mm zoom, rather than switching to my 50mm f1.8 prime for the extra low-light speed - but I was going to have to deal with a little movement blur because of this. Cranked the ISO up to 800 (yeah, I know, it's not a multiple of 160) for a bit more shutter speed, and hoped for the best.

I was actually pretty pleased with the results. Noise is OK at ISO800, and I didn't loose too many due to subject blur. I looked for 'pause points' - moments when the action wasn't to frenetic - and got a pretty decent hit rate.

Canon 5D with 28-105mm @ f4.5 ISO160

Looking back over the images from the day, I'm thrilled with the performance of my Canon 28-105mm f3.4/4.5 zoom. It is a very sharp optic, even shot wide open, and the colour rendition and detail is perfect for portraits. As a walk-around lens for the 5D it's almost perfect - but for the church interior images I was a little worried and felt a bit limited. An f2.8 aperture would have been better, as well as Image Stabilization, but you're talking big dollars for both of those.

I can, however, have one of them - Image Stabilization - in a lens that is very similar: Canon's 28-135mm f3.5/5.6 IS. This lens is talked about in the same breath as the 28-105mm, with the same good image quality, but with extra reach at the telephoto end - and with the addition of IS.

So after reviewing the images in the evening, and mulling over the day, I decided to take the plunge and get one! Just like the 28-105mm they are very reasonably priced on Trademe - and I found a new one going for half price from a guy who had one bought for him as a present, that he'd never used, because he has 'L' glass!

Canon 5D with 100mm macro @f2.8

Also got to use my friends 100mm macro for some of the portraits - wide open at f2.8. The lighting was beautiful, and the above shot of Paul and Diane is straight out of camera - no dodging, burning etc. The quality of this lens is simply amazing. Not to mention the sensor on the 5D. It really is a great wedding camera. I'm actually quite stunned at the series of portraits I took with this lens at the wedding. They look like I've done a whole heap of work on them in Photoshop, but in reality I've done zip. Nada. Zero to them. Just good light, a great camera, and an amazing lens - combined with a fun couple who gave me the time I needed to get the natural portraits they were after.

All-in-all a great first up experience, shooting with the Canon 5D again, on my last wedding for this season. Great way to end the year.

Canon 100mm f2.8 macro - Quick review

2011-04-01T23:12:00.001+13:00

My Nikon gear is selling thick and fast. One of the lenses I am most upset about parting with has just been sold - the 105mm Micro Nikkor. What a great lens. I've determined that I will get the same lens in the Canon version for my 5D, so to that end I 'borrowed' one today (thanks Nicky) to have a bit of a play.

And here it is - the Canon 100mm f2.8 USM macro. A formidable lens, and the equal (if not better) to my Nikkor micro.

The first thing I noticed was the weight - it's a solid lens at over half a kg (584gms) in weight. There's good quality plastic being used, but there is also a lot of metal and glass that makes this one hefty piece of kit. I'm not complaining mind you. It isn't that heavy. But even on the 5D it holds its own in terms of weight and heft. That's a + in my book.

The other immediate positive is the focus system with the ring type USM. It makes for fast and silent autofocusing - especially when the lens is used as a telephoto portrait optic. This image of Emily was shot wide open at f2.8, and it's as sharp as a tack on the eyes and facial features - right where I positioned the focus points. It's as good, if not better, than the Nikkor in terms of wide open image sharpness for portraiture, and the out-of-focus background blur (or bokeh) is also working in this lenses favour. Very pleasing (although not completely round), out of focus 'balls' from the 8-bladed aperture produce a very creamy background quality - especially in 1:1 macro.

1:1 macro with beautiful colour rendition

Auto focus was even possible down to 1:1 macro, although it did hunt a bit and I switched to manual for most of the true macro shooting with this lens (as I did with the Nikkor).

I haven't purchased this lens myself yet - I'm waiting for a good used one to appear on Trademe - but in looking around I have come across the third-party offerings from the likes of Tamron and Sigma. They get pretty good write-ups most of the time too. The two things that put me off seriously considering them for my macro/portrait work are the inferior (noisy) screw-type focusing systems, and the fact that the barrels extend a great deal as the lenses are focused to full 1:1 magnification. The Canon might start out a longer lens, but it does all the lens extensions internally, and doesn't extend any barrels from the front of the lens. I find this a huge help when shooting macro, because I already know how close I can physically get the lens to my subjects - quite often small jittery creatures who are flighty at the best of times. So I see the Canon's fixed length as a real bonus.

My Girl f2.8, Canon 100mm Macro

The other major drawcard with these lenses? They do double duty. Not only do they introduce you to the world of true 1:1 macro (whereas the 50mm and 60mm macro lenses don't), they also hold their own as superb medium-telephoto portrait lenses! Talk about the best of both worlds!

NZ Native Pohutakawa Flower

That's why I think these lenses make fantastic sense. They may be a 'prime' fixed focal length lens (and not a zoom), but even for a wedding photographer like me, there are so many uses for a macro lens on a wedding day. Close up dress details, wedding rings, flower shots, table decoration, cake details - all shot in macro. And then there's the bridal party images you can shoot with the 100mm telephoto wide open at f2.8. Bride and groom portraits, bridal party individuals - the list goes on and on.

I could shoot a wedding without taking a 100mm macro with me. But would I want to?

Nah.

Back-Up body re-think

2011-03-31T11:15:00.000+13:00

Ok, so I'm lying in bed last night contemplating my last post on getting a back-up body for my 5D. I'm following a few on-line auctions for camera bodies at the moment - mostly for 40D's, and it seems to me I'll be lucky to get one for less than $750NZ. And then I start thinking about the lenses I want to get for the 5D - not to mention speedlites etc. And my 'budget' starts to skyrocket.

And then it dawns on me. Why am I spending so much on a back-up body!? Since it literally is going to be a back-up to the 5D. I don't shoot with two cameras hung around my neck - that's not my style. I mostly use an assistant on a wedding, and they help me change lenses quickly when and if I need to. The extra body really never sees any action - and I hope that it never does. Yes, I'll take it out occasionally to put some images through it to keep it working - but mostly it will just sit there unused. So why am I considering getting an (arguably) better camera body as a back-up to my 5D that will never get used? Duh!

So I've changed tack slightly - and I'm thinking the 20D. For quite a few reasons.

A peek inside the 20D

First - it's considerably cheaper to buy on the secondhand market. Body only can go for about $200NZ. That's a saving of over $500NZ already. And that's a brand new 430EX II right there.

Second - the layout of the controls, menus, buttons, dials etc on the 20D are exactly identical to the 5D. Exactly. You could almost call it a mini-5D in fact. Which makes a lot of sense if you are going to be moving between the two cameras.

Third - the 20D won't make the 5D look 'inferior' in any way - the 5D is a step up, rather than a step down from the 40D (again, arguably).

Fourth - 8MP is any amount of resolution in a backup camera, as is 5fps if I ever want to take it out for some sports action.

And finally - the 20D uses the same battery, charger, cords etc, etc, than the 5D - so many of the accessories and batteries will be interchangeable between the two. Extra batteries for the 5D means extra batteries for my back-up camera as well.

I'm constantly telling my students not to worry so much about the camera body, and to concentrate on the lenses instead. Might be time I started taking my own advice?

Makes a lot of sense to me.

A Tale of 4 D's

2011-03-29T17:29:00.000+13:00

My Nikon gear is starting to sell, so now my thoughts turn to purchasing a back-up body for the 5D.

The 'Rebel' range are out. Don't like the ergonomics and they aren't quite rugged enough. Which is not to say they can't take a lick'n and keep on tick'n - they certainly can. But the more rugged alloy bodies of the '00D' series are designed more along the lines of the 5D - so that's where I'm looking.

Canon's 20D, 30D, 40D and 50D. Pick the odd one out.

Also not interested in paying 'top dollar' for a brand-spanking new one, so that also rules the current 60D out. Which really leaves the above range of Canon 'enthusiast' level camera bodies for consideration.

All the above cameras have enough megapixels for me - from the 8MP 20D to the 15MP 50D. Megapixels aren't a consideration. Neither is Live View, which the 40 & 50D have, but the 20 & 30D don't. Big deal. Don't care.

From the front, at least, they all look alarmingly similar. And in many respects they are. Every addition a little faster, little bigger (megapixels), a little better at low light / high ISO's. So where to jump in for a 'good' secondhand body?

For me, it comes down to what's on the back - the LCD screen. This will govern most (although not all) of my decision on which camera to go for. I think a 3" LCD screen is about right. So this eliminates the 20D and 30D - leaving the 40D and 50D as serious contenders.

This is where it gets a little trickier. The 40D has a 230,000 dot LCD screen, whereas the 50D ups that to 920,000 dots (the same as my D300 had). This makes a huge difference, and is a much nicer screen. In comparison, however, the 5D uses a 2.5" screen with 230,000 dots - smaller than the 40D! So while the 50D screen would be nice - even the 40D's screen is better than the 5D's! And remember, this will be my back-up body.

So based on the LCD, together with the speed ratings of both cameras etc, I've decided to go with the 40D. I'll save myself $100 (or so), and get a 10MP camera that shoots at 6.5fps, with a 3" LCD screen and shooting up to ISO 3200. Ergonomically, it is also practically identical to the 5D, so switching between the two bodies should almost be seamless. Very important in the heat of battle :-)

Now I just have to find one.

Decision made.

2011-03-29T14:27:00.000+13:00

From Canon to Nikon and back again.

This blog started as a Nikon owners blog when I was using the Nikon D70 all those years ago - and then switched a couple of years later when I changed to the Canon 30D. This led to the 5D, and then back to Nikon when my 5D stopped working just prior to last years wedding season.

The Canon 5D not working rocked me quite a bit, as only a few months earlier the 'L' lens that came with it (24-105 f4L) also needed to be sent back to Canon for an issue with the lens barrel. Was Canon's quality control going all to heck? Why was this happening to their 'professional' models - and more importantly, why was it happening to me!?

So I jumped ship, sold most of my Canon gear (except the 5D body), and got the Nikon D300. And I've loved it ever since.

But now the Canon 5D is back - repaired, and I can't help myself. I'm a Canon user at heart and always have been. So I'm keeping the 5D - looking for a backup body (probably a 40D), and have started selling my Nikon gear. The SB600 flash and Nikon D300 body have already gone! In fact the D300 body sold about an hour after I put it up for auction online. Now I have all my lenses and other accessories up as well.

Been looking around for a vertical grip for the 5D (BG-E4), but they seem to be rarer than hens teeth! So I've purchased one from Adorama in the USA, from their secondhand dept. Should be here by the end of the week? Maybe in time for my last wedding of the year?

So I've shot my last wedding with the Nikon D300. And yes, I'm sad about that. I still maintain that it's a 'better' camera than the 5D. Only hope the decision doesn't haunt me too much!?

The Tough Decisions...

2011-03-25T16:56:00.000+13:00

Last post I talked about my impressions of the 5D, having not used it for over a year - compared to the Nikon D300 that I had been shooting with instead.

I'm not going to sugar coat it - the 5D is sub-par in almost every respect when held up to the D300 - bar two: sensor size, and ergonomics. Not that I think the ergonomics of the D300 are bad, because they certainly aren't. And nor is the sensor 'bad' when compared to the 5D's either. So what am I on about then?

Canon 5D with Canon 28-105mm f3.5/4.5

Lets take the first point: Ergonomics. Talk to any photographer whose been doing this for a while - who has been exposed to both Canon and Nikon camera systems - and they will tell you there is a Canon way of doing things, and a Nikon way. Neither are necessarily better than the other, they just are.

So if you use any one system for a long period (like I did with Canon), you get used the their way of doing things. Simple things, like which way you twist a lens to mount onto a camera body, arrangement of buttons and dials etc. Heck, even just the jargon they use for a particular function. I've been using the Nikon well over a year now, and I still find myself twisting the lens the wrong way, or reaching for a control dial that just isn't there. I've trained my hands to work the 'Canon' way. While it doesn't stop me using other systems, it just never quite feels 'right'?

Canon 5D with 28-105mm

Second: the Sensor. Now again, let me repeat that the D300 sensor isn't bad. In fact it's fantastic! At 12MP I reckon it's just about the perfect Goldilocks size - not too big, and not too small. Just right. Noise is well handled up to at least 1600, and the images I get off of the D300 are punchy, vibrant and saturated when set to the 'Vivid' colour space. All-in-all, no complaints.

But... (isn't there always a but), the sensor isn't full frame. And yeah, I do sometimes wish it was. Even though I've collected an arsenal of seriously good cropped sensor glass, and I dig that the 50mm f1.4 becomes a 75mm f1.4 portrait lens, I still have this nagging feeling that 'bigger' is better.
If I want a cropped sensor, I'd like it to be for my back-up body, not my main camera. Yes, I know that Nikon does have full frame in the D700, D3x etc - but I don't have them, do I! No, I have the Canon 5D.

Same deal. Canon 5D with 28-105mm lens.

So it's really decision time. And it's not an easy one (for me at least). In oh-so-many ways the Nikon D300 is a much better camera, and I now have a good supply of lenses and flashes for it.
I could just stick with the Nikon, and forget that I've even got the 5D. Or just use two systems. Or just use the 5D for landscapes and D300 for weddings. All possible options.

But a large part of me thinks I really should concentrate on just the one system. And logically that really should be the system I'm most comfortable with... Canon.

So I find myself in the strange position of seriously considering switching camera systems again - this time back to Canon from Nikon! And keeping a camera that I genuinely consider to be inferior to the one I'm selling! Am I crazy?

Of course 'inferior' is subjective. And let's face it, the 5D is/was an amazing camera as well. It's not like I'm chucking all my digital SLR gear in favor of a cardboard box pinhole camera. That would be crazy.

I was very happy with the 5D (which also has my definition of a 'Goldilocks' sensor at 12.8MP) before it died on me, and now that it's back, I'm sure I'll be very happy with it again. The money I get from the sale of my Nikon gear will get me a backup body (probably the 40D) and a couple of nice lenses to go with the 20-35mm and 28-105mm I already have. And with the ability to 'borrow' some seriously pro Canon glass from friends who trust me with their gear - I'll have a superb system back up and running in no time.

Will be very sad to see the D300 go though. I love that camera.

Tripping with the Canon 20-35mm

2011-03-07T20:30:00.000+13:00

Having just received my 5D back from the repairer, and my new 20-35mm lens from Trademe (an internet auction site similar to ebay here in New Zealand), I was keen as mustard to get out and shoot with it. There were a lot of events happening locally this weekend, so we picked one and headed out the door.

We decided as a family to go to the Gypsy Fair. I was keen to go because I knew there would be lots of photo opportunities for bold colour and good wide-angle images - and I wasn't disappointed.

I haven't used the Canon 5D in over a year - shooting with the Nikon D300 instead. I've written about my love for the D300 and initially felt myself really missing some of its features over the 5D. For example, I much prefer the larger, higher resolution LCD screen on the Nikon D300 - it's gorgeous compared to the smaller, lower resolution screen on the Canon.

This may sound like a small thing, but in reality it's huge (no pun intended). Looking on the back of the 5D didn't inspire confidence that I had the image I wanted - even when checking the histogram. The 5D images lacked the punch and pop I am used to seeing on the screen of my D300, although I'm pleased to say this isn't particularly borne out in the final results on the computer.

I was using the 'Portrait' Picture Style on the 5D, whereas with my D300 I'm used to the 'Vivid' colour setting. And I'm pretty sure that therein lies the problem. I've set up my own 'Custom' picture Style on the 5D now - increasing the sharpness, saturation, contrast and colour tone values, and I'm getting much better images on the back of the camera.

Of course I'm shooting RAW on both systems, so these settings aren't of major importance for the final RAW file. But it is better to see a sharp, punchy image on the back of the camera after you've taken a photo. It just inspires more confidence.

I'm also not too inspired by the 9-point focus system on the Canon 5D when compared to the 51 point system on the Nikon. I'm not saying the Canon is bad - and I only tend to use the central focusing point and recompose anyway - but the autofocus system on the Nikon does seem more robust and responsive. Regardless of frames-per-second (which the Nikon also completely hammers the 5D in), I know which camera body I would reach for if the action got really frantic - and it wouldn't be the 5D. Of course for static images - and even for capturing my son on a mini trail bike - the 5D is more than capable (of course).

One of the issues I had with the 5D files when I got them onto the computer was noise. I was shooting at ISO 100, so no, noise isn't that apparent - but surprisingly it is there. Again, I think I've been somewhat spoilt with the D300, which although not the best of the bunch, still handles noise much better than the 5D. I regularly shoot at ISO1600 on the D300, whereas I don't think I'll go much above 800 on the 5D. I also heard recently that Canon sensors perform best at ISO160 and multiples thereof (320, 640 etc). So ISO160 is cleaner than ISO100? Might have to give that a go and see for myself. Place that in the 'strange but true' file.

Anyway, the photo above 'Lucky Star', shot at ISO100, has noise in the dark areas inside the caravan that is simply horrible. Admittedly I underexposed quite a bit to retain detail in the clouds, and then 'opened' the shadows in Photoshop - but even some of the better exposed areas 'cleaned up' noticeably when I put the image through Noise Ninja. Probably a worse case scenario - but the 5D is definitely noisier than the D300 - period.

At this point you may be thinking 'what a dog of a camera'. Surely there must be something he does like? Isn't there? Well I'm glad you asked, because there is indeed. Quite a few things in fact.

First, even though it may exhibit more noise, the sensor on the 5D has to be one of its major selling points - because it's full frame. Yes, I do appreciate that my new Canon 20-35mm is, in fact, a 20 to 35mm optic on the 5D (and not some weird 32-56mm monstrosity). I'm not a super telephoto shooter, so I don't really appreciate the x1.6 crop factor of the ADSC sized sensors. I want a 24-70mm to be exactly that - thank you very much.

Second, I love the ergonomics of the Canon. Using the large scroll wheel on the back of the camera to instantly change EV is inspired bliss. I'm so used to shooting with that big old wheel in the back, I miss it soooooo much when I shoot with my Nikon.

Otherwise I'm in two minds about the overall simplicity of the Canon compared to the Nikon. I'd like the Canon to have an option to use a two button reformat without having to dig into the menu system a-la the Nikon's, but then again, the Canon 5D seems easier to get familiar with. I can recall it being called a real 'photographers' camera when it was first released, and I must say I agree with that. It's got nothing you don't need (live view, picture modes, video capability etc) and everything that you do to take great images. It's solid, weather sealed, fits my hand perfectly and is part of an incredibly impressive system - especially the Canon lenses.

Which finally brings me to the Canon 20-35mm f3.5/4.5. With the Canon EW-83 lens hood attached it's a bit of a monster lens - not very long, and not very heavy, but man does it have a big front element (77mm)! The ultrasonic motor is lightning quick and whisper quiet, giving the impression of a quality lens. Initial impressions are that the images are plenty sharp enough, especially when stopped down to f5.6 or f8. And so it should be as an ultra-wide optic.

What I don't like about it is the very short front focus ring. It's too narrow, and too close to the front of that honking great lens hood. The even narrower manual focus ring is better placed and falls more naturally under my fingers when holding the lens. Wish Canon had put the zoom ring there instead. Ah well. 'Pobody's nerfect' as they say :-)

Folks reading this may sense a bit of Canon v Nikon, although that's not my intention at all (really). These are just the differences in the two camera systems that I own, as I see it. And these are also just my initial thoughts, after using the 5D again after over a year. I've already tweaked the cameras picture style to give me a better user experience, and even that little thing has worked wonders.

Ideally I'd meld the two together into one Super-Wayne camera :-) If only life were that simple.

Canon 20-35mm f3.5/4.5

2011-03-01T14:11:00.000+13:00

Hooray! Just received news that my Canon 5D is finally going to be fixed!

I had sent it off to a camera repairer who was initially at a loss for what was causing the fault (top lcd and viewfinder info not showing). He thought it might be a couple of things, but couldn't be sure until he'd had a chance to 'test' his theories out using the parts from a working 5D. But that meant waiting until he got another 5D that he could pull apart and use the bits from!

Well, that day finally arrived, and he was pleased to report back that he has found the cause of the fault (one of the circuit boards), and it is the easier of the two possible fixes. It's still going to cost me $500NZ to have it repaired, but that's only a tenth of what the camera initially cost, so I think it's worth it to get it back up and running again.

So I may soon be using two different systems - both Canon and Nikon - when I shoot a wedding! Cool.

Only slight problem with getting the 5D back is my general lack of lenses for it! That won't be a problem on a wedding, since my assistant Nicky is a Canon shooter and has some amazing glass I can use for the day. How about a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8? I could easily shoot a whole wedding with just those two lenses right there!

But for my own personal photography, I really only have a 50mm f1.8 (of my daughters) that I can use, so things are looking a little more limited. So I decided to fix that, by adding a wide angle zoom to the 50mm - picking up a Canon 20-35mm f3.5/4.5 off Trademe today!

The 20-35mm is one of the first EF wide angle lenses Canon made for the 'consumer' market, although they didn't skimp on the build quality. It has a superior electronic USM (ultra sonic motor) focusing system with full-time manual override, a large 77mm filter element, metal mount, and solid construction. What it doesn't have are any aspherical or correctional lens elements.

General reports on the internet are positive - stop the lens down to f8 or f11 and it's a very sharp and reasonably well corrected optic. Which, once again, is fine with me. Just like my Tokina 12-24mm f4 for my Nikon D300, the Canon 20-35mm will be a landscape lens (for the most part), so smaller apertures will be the norm when using it - not the exception.

The 5D will take a few weeks to be fixed and sent back to me, whereas I should have the 20-35mm soon. I might get a chance to use the 5D at my last two weddings for the year - at the end of April and beginning of March. Should be interesting to see how I go switching between the two systems at a wedding?

Tokina 12-24mm f4

2011-02-15T11:58:00.000+13:00

I've blogged frequently over the last couple of years about my desire to own a 'super' wide angle lens for my landscape work. In the past I have owned the Sigma 15-30, which is about as wide as I've ever gotten - until recently, of course, having just purchased the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom. But this is a fisheye lens in the true sense of the meaning, and I don't for a moment consider it to be my one and only landscape lens.

So in a moment of weakness (or should that be bravado?) I bid on a Tokina 12-24mm f4 ATX-Pro wide angle lens, and won it!

Of all the third-party lens offerings, I have gravitated towards Tokina for a couple of reasons. Firstly, everyone raves about their quality and finish, some even suggesting that their lenses are better made than the manufacturers own offerings. And I can confirm this with my recent purchases. They really do make beautifully solid lenses.

And second, the quality of their glass is also impressive - which is, after all, why you buy a lens in the first place - right? I believe that the glass in their lenses is manufactured by Hoya, who have always been my preferred filter makers. I like the quality of Hoya glass, which always comes at a pretty decent price.

And thirdly (and perhaps least importantly), I also heard that Tokina was started by lens engineers who left Nikon to start their own company. They wanted to make more 'exotic' glass, but couldn't get it happening through Nikon, so they went out on their own. And certainly if you look at Tokina's range you'll find that they offer a lot less choice than the likes of Sigma. But I think the saying "Quality, not Quantity" aptly describes Tokina's mantra for business. And it's a mantra I'm willing to support.

Anyway, the lens turned up the other day and it is indeed a solid, well made lens. The autofocus action is quick and quiet, the manual focus is incredibly smooth (like butter), and Tokina's unique 'clutch' mechanism for engaging manual focus work easily and has just the right amount of grip to make the transition obvious (but not forced).

Above is a photo taken at 24mm, at f8 - around the sweet spot of the lens and where I'm most likely to shoot with it for landscapes (maybe going to f11 or 16 on occasion). The image is very sharp almost all over - only degrading very slightly at the extreme edges. Distortion is kept well under control at 24mm (and even at 12mm), and the colour/contrast is crisp and accurate - at least to my eyes.

The 100% crop above shows the sharpness boost you get going from f4 to f8 - this is not a lens you should use wide open a lot. But since this is my landscape lens, I'm not going to use it at f4 at all - so no big deal, right? People get so hung up on sharpness nowadays it's ridiculous. For what I want to use the lens (predominantly) for, f8 is about where I'll always be - and this lens is super sharp at f8. For the times that I may want to shoot an environmental portrait, I'll want to be at f5.6(ish) anyway, and it's also plenty sharp enough there too. And from what I've read on other sites, the Tokina at f4 is a match for the manufacturers own offerings anyway - at half the price!

The range from 12 to 24mm is about right for my landscape style. I don't feel the need to shoot at 10mm, so the Sigma wasn't really a consideration. 12mm (18mm equivalent) is plenty wide enough - seriously. Once upon a time (in film days) 24mm was plenty wide enough for most people and 20mm was considered crazy wide.

Nikon's equivalent is also the same focal range and f-stop (constant f4), but is considerably more expensive. Even second hand, they go for twice the price that I paid for the Tokina. Is image quality twice as good on the Nikon? No it's not. And as described, you don't sacrifice construction quality with the Tokina either.

I'm very happy with the Tokina 12-24mm f5 ATX-Pro - well worth the money, and I'm looking forward to many years usage creating some outstanding images with it. Will post some landscapes taken with the lens when I get around to giving it a serious workout. Good times.

Nikkor 50mm f1.4 quick thought

2011-02-10T16:00:00.000+13:00

My 50mm f1.4 arrived yesterday and I managed to take it out for a couple of quick shots to test its open aperture capabilities.

First quick thought - yes, it is made of 'better' materials than my 50mm f1.8, but I wouldn't necessarily say that it's therefore better made. My 1.4 has a bit of wiggle and a little jiggle when shaken - something that the f1.8 has to a slightly lesser degree. I'm sure this is normal, however, and not the optics shaking around inside!

Focus speed on the F1.4 seems about as fast as the f1.8 too - certainly not noticeably faster. And focus motor noise is also on par for both lenses. So really, it's in the optics that the f1.4 needs to shine.

Does it shine there? Well, as yet I haven't made a direct comparison, but initial testing with the f1.4 confirms what I've been reading from others. At wide open (1.4) the lens is all-over soft. Not unusably soft - for portraits the softness is kinda nice - but it is soft nonetheless.

You can see from the above portrait of Emily and the 100% crop in on the eye that, although soft, the image still works as a soft portrait. The background is beautifully blurred, and the depth-of-field at f1.4 is just enough so that facial features remain reasonably sharp, but get increasingly blurred out from about the cheeks backwards.

Change the f-stop to f2.8, however, and things improve 100%. The focus point (on the eye) becomes stunningly sharp. Although as you can see, you do gain more depth of field. Lips and chin are now also in focus using my D300 cropped sensor body.

So from about f2 the 50mm f1.4 is super sharp. Again - not sure how comparable that is to the 50mm f1.8, but I'll make that comparison soon. In the meantime, I will use the f1.4 at a wedding this week and see how it performs. Might post a couple of images from the day as well.

Nikkor 50mm f1.4D

2011-01-27T22:14:00.000+13:00

I weakened, and I bought one.

Yes, I know I've already got the 50mm f1.8D. And yes, I love it, and use it all the time.

But... I've always been curious about the F1.4D version. It's supposed to be much better built than the f1.8 (although to be fair that wouldn't be hard), and given than it's three times the price, then it damn well should be!

More importantly, it's also supposed to be sharper than the f1.8 (at the wider f1.8 to f2.8 apertures, and with much creamier/smoother bokeh.
That's the stuff that really interests me.

I love my Nikkor f1.8D - and the f1.4D is supposedly all that, and more! Hey, I'm up for that.

I'm not interested in the 'newer' f1.4'G' series lens. By all accounts it's slightly slower focusing than the f1.4D - and I just don't like the way the newer 'G' primes look. Too smooth and sculptured. They just look too plasticky. I much prefer the aesthetics of these 'older' lenses. Oh and yeah, the 'G' lens is also about double the price! No thank you.

I'll let you know what I think after the lens arrives, and probably even do a quick comparison with the f1.8D since I'll have both fast 50's together at the same time. Cool!

Fisheye Fun

2011-01-27T21:55:00.000+13:00

My Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye arrived today, and yep, it's FUN!

At 10mm you can fit a whole room in - including most of yourself if you're not too careful!

And it has that great fisheye look which, although admittedly can get old real quick, is also undoubtedly a unique spin on an otherwise dull image. This is just a snap of Emy in our lounge - literally the first shot I took with the lens on my D300, but it's also kinda neat. I love how you get sooooo much in, although when kept in the middle the 'subject' still looks relatively natural. I can see the wedding potential already.

So I took the kids outside and fired another a few more quick shots. just to get a feel for the lens. Not surprisingly it's very snappy to focus, and beautifully sharp, especially in the centre, even wide open. I may not use this lens a lot, but I can tell I'm going to love the results when I do.

Another shot at 10mm - showing again how the central figures can stay reasonably normal, while the horizon and edges bend for the funky fisheye effect. Great portrait of the kids.

Never ask your son "How close can you get to my lens?"
"Is this close enough Dad?"

Seriously, how can you not have fun with this lens?

Tokina Fisheye for my D300

2011-01-20T16:21:00.000+13:00

Digital has taken a back seat over the last few months as my passion for film photography has really blossomed. I've written extensively on my experiences over at filmisback.blogspot.com and poor old digital hasn't got a look in!

That's not to say I haven't used my D300 - I shot my second wedding for the season last weekend, and am still all digital on a wedding shoot. I've also got a 'Trash the Dress' session booked in for next month, which will also be digital (although I may sneak some medium format film in there somewhere?). So while I might have been ranting and raving about film over the past few months, digital remains a big part of my work - and will remain so. I still love my Nikon D300.

So to that end, I've decided to give my D300 a little present - jut to say 'sorry' for neglecting it for so long :-) I've always yearned for a funky fisheye lens. Something compatible with my cropped sensor D300. When Brian and Emily Hatch visited from the States last year, I got to play with Brian's 16mm FX (Full frame) Nikkor Fisheye, and while I fell in love with it, it really wasn't fisheye enough on my crop sensor. To get true fisheye with a Nikkor lens, I'd need to get the 10.5mm DX lens, taking it back up to the 16mm of Brian's lens with the crop factor added in. But since a new 10.5mm costs over $1400.00NZ, that wasn't about to happen any time soon.

But there are decent alternatives in the third-party lens realm - probably the most tempting of which is the Tokina 10-17mm f3.5/4.5 DX fisheye - the world's only true fisheye zoom! Of the third-party offerings, the build quality of Tokina is legendary, and even though it isn't considered one of their 'pro' lenses, the 10-17mm still gets very good reviews for build quality.

I've been keeping an eye on the lens auctions recently, in the hope that a manual focus fisheye for either Olympus or Minolta would show up, even tough they are both as rare as hens teeth. Not surprisingly, nothing has. But what did pop up, at an amazing price, was a Tokina 10-17mm DX fisheye for Nikon. So I bought it.

What a sexy little lens it is! And most reviews are very positive - except for two things!

First, all the reviewers stress that this is a true fisheye lens, it hasn't been corrected for distortions in any way. Images, especially at the 10mm end, will distort wildly! Great, that's just what I want. You don't buy a fisheye to get rid of the fisheye look - you want to use it! Well at least I do. And yes, while I know that the fisheye thing can get madly overdone, I'm also willing to bet that when my brides see one or two fisheye images in their proof book they'll go nuts over them. I reckon I'll use it at least once for every wedding. And then there's my own landscape work as well. So the fisheye distortion argument doesn't phase me. This is a specialty lens to be used sparingly. Dually noted.

Second, and perhaps more damning, is the lenses tendency to purple fringe in places of high contrast within the image. While on the face of it this is a problem, the D300 (and other high-end nikon bodies) will actually reduce this problem 'in-camera' so I don't believe it will be as noticeable as many of the (Canon using) reviewers have suggested. It's also something that is fairly easy to fix in post processing as well. It does have an aspherical element to correct for aberrations, but that's a great big bulbous hunk of glass on the front of that lens, so it's not surprising it struggles a little with harsh light.

And while we're on the subject of the front element - it may have a tiny built-in hood, but the front stays mainly unprotected. No filters will fit on the front, and Tokina have not made any allowances for rear-fitting gels. No biggy, and I have seen a D.I.Y work around a landscape photographer posted on his blog if I want to go down that track. But I'm not worried, since I won't be using it for every shot. It is, as I've already pointed out, a specialty lens.

Can't wait for it to arrive. I'll definitely be posting some images and my initial thoughts on the lens when I've had a play with it on the D300. After 25+ years in photography, I'm finally going to own a fisheye lens. Yeeehaaaa!

A moment of Nostalgia

2010-10-17T21:06:00.000+13:00

I've been doing a lot of research on the Olympus Pen (see previous post) and it's got me all nostalgic for film and retro-looking cameras.

So this weekend I pulled out a few of my old Canon cameras, and decided to shoot some film on the camera that started my passion - the T70.

The Canon T70 wasn't the very first camera I ever used - but it was the very first camera I ever owned. The first camera I used was a Nikon (FM I think?), handed to me by a friend when we went to a car rally. I fiddled around with the camera all day, desperately trying to freeze cars in a single frame as they went hurtling past me at a great rate of knots. I didn't get many good photos, but it didn't matter. I was hooked on photography from that day on, and it's been my passion/obsession ever since.

I had a love-hate relationship with my original T70, the camera that launched Canon into the 'computer age'. I loved the way it handled, the up-to-date interface (this was the 1980s) and its ease of use. I hated the top LCD screen that kept dying on me which meant that my T70 was in for repair more than it was out in the field. It was truly frustrating for someone trying the immerse themselves in photography and I think I would have eventually given up on Canon if they hadn't come to the party with a brand new T90! Now that was an amazing camera.

I don't own a T90 anymore, but have managed to buy a very good condition T70 (and T80 pictured behind it). This weekend I popped a couple of batteries in the T70, loaded up some Velvia 50, and went out with a Canon FD50mm f1.8 and Sigma 28mm f2.8 manual focus lenses.

The family went for a walk along a local beach and I snapped away with the T70. Got to admit it felt good using a manual focus camera again. Although I wouldn't be too keen to take it to a sporting event with much accuracy. Auto focus really has spoiled us as photographers.

Will your next camera be EVIL?

2010-10-14T13:49:00.000+13:00

There's a new category of camera hitting the market - one I suggest you take a very hard look at if you are looking at buying a new point-and-shoot anytime soon.

They're being called EVIL camera's (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) and most are based around a new 4/3rds sensor - although some (like Samsung's NX100) are even using an APS-C sized sensor taken from digital SLR's.

The very first of these EVIL cameras (I just love that term) was the Olympus Pen EP-1 - a camera I am seriously considering as my next 'travel' camera.

Olympus pioneered the 4/3rd's system (with an image sensor smaller than the APS-C sized, but much larger than those found in today's point and shoots), first seen in the Olympus' E-1. As solid and professional as that camera was, the 4/3rd's system failed to capture the imagination of most other manufacturers (with the exception of Panasonic) - until the release of the Pen.

It was with the Pen EP-1 that Olympus defined their 'micro' 4/3rd's camera. Beautifully built, and stunningly retro (harkening back as it does to the original film version of the Pen from the 1950's), the EP-1 almost literally rocked the camera industry, and Olympus built a very loyal following that now includes the EP-2 and (more consumer driven) EPL-1.

The 'micro' in Micro 4/3rd's doesn't relate to a smaller chip - the chip size hasn't changed from that which Olympus uses in their digital SLR's. It's the bodies of the cameras themselves that are now smaller (micro) because they have done away with the prism viewfinder experience of a digital SLR - to the more point-and-shoot experience of using the LCD to compose and shoot (although optional Electronic Viewfinders are available - hence the EV in EVIL).

Panasonic released their first Micro 4/3rd's camera, the G1, soon after the Pen - although they took a slightly different tact. The G1 was a much more SLR-like camera (with a built in Electronic Viewfinder) - and have since released a much more compact model - the GF1 (seen here) to compete directly with Olympus.

Both systems use a Panasonic 4/3rds sensor, and both have interchangeable lenses (the IL part of EVIL). Popular among these is the 'pancake' lens with a fixed focal length (17mm for Olympus and 20mm for Panasonic) which makes the EVIL system 'almost' pocketable (but still much larger than the smaller point and shoots that are available).

So why would you want one of these new EVIL camera's. It's all about the sensor baby. Bigger sensors (generally) mean better, noise free images - especially at high ISO's, and the reviews of these cameras are bearing this out. At ISO 800 the images are very useable, and the Olympus can even shoot up to 6400 for 'OK' results (the Panasonic stops at 3200). This is much better than even the best point and shoot, which is why serious amateur's and professional photographers alike have been flocking to buy these cameras.

With so much interest being shown in this new line of EVIL camera's, it's not surprising that more manufacturers are coming on board with their own offerings.

Korean electronics giant Samsung is the newest kid on the block, with the NX100 released this year (2010) at Photokina. And Samsung have upped the anti further still by putting an APS-C sized sensor in the NX100 which should produce even better high ISO performance (although we'll have to wait and see).

The 'other' electronics giant who I haven't mentioned, but who also recently released their own EVIL cameras onto the market are, of course, Sony. The NEX 3 and NEX 5 are, as you would expect from Sony, beautifully designed cameras that 'stand out' from the crowd, but have received slightly mixed reviews so far.

With all this flurry of activity and interest around the new EVIL camera system, it's surprising that there are two notable absences from the party. What are Canon and Nikon up to? the two camera giants might be silent at the moment, but they are certainly not sleeping. Both were heavily rumored to release their own EVIL cameras at Photokina - although it didn't happen. Why? Well, I can't say. But Nikon have already indicated that they will be coming out with their answer 'in due course' - and whatever Nikon does...

What this all means for us, the consumer, is better/smaller/lighter cameras fitted with decent sized sensors - FINALLY! Thanks to Olympus and the 'Micro' 4/3rd's concept, life in digital camera land just got a whole lot more interesting.

And for me. Well, the Olympus Pen EP-1 that started it all remains a very attractive camera - literally! Look at it - it's gorgeous! And while it's auto focus system isn't reported to be the fastest, the images it can produce are classic Olympus - beautiful colour, great sharpness - with very good ISO performance. That may be something I find very hard to resist. My next camera will be EVIL. Will yours?

Down 'n Dirty Home Studio

2010-10-11T18:57:00.000+13:00

I was commissioned this week to shoot some jade (pounamu - pronounced po-nar-moo) for the local Polytechnic Jade Carving School. I used to shoot jade for collection purposes when I was director of the Left Bank Art Gallery here in Greymouth, and this was a fairly similar gig - just record shots mainly. They also however, wanted some more 'advertorial' images to use for brochures, advertising etc.

To achieve the look I wanted that suits jade (very backlit) I set up a home studio in my living room. Very D.I.Y - but it works :-)

I went to the local fabric store in town and bought a meter of black velvet for the backdrop ($20NZ), which I taped to the top of a plastic pipe strung between two light stands. In front of this I placed a small table with my SB600 flashgun pointing up from behind to give the strong backlight.

Then I set up a boom arm on another lighting stand from which I hung the jade using nylon fishing line (I will photoshop this out afterwards).

My Nikon D300 was placed on a tripod, with the 105mm macro attached, and the camera set for wireless flash mode so that it is acting as a commander to fire the SB600.

Fairly straight forward - and it works a treat. I reckon the result speaks for itself.

BTW - the 'studio' shot was taken with my iPhone. My first 'published' camera phone image :-)

Nikkor 105mm f2.8D Micro lens for Portraits

2010-10-03T20:42:00.000+13:00

Having run my 'new' Nikkor 105mm Macro lens through its paces in the 1:1 macro magnification (see last post), I also wanted to see how it would perform as a 'portrait' telephoto lens.

I grabbed my usual model (my gorgeous daughter Emily) and took her outside on a warm spring evening to use the 105mm wide open - as I would for a bride on her wedding day.

My Nikon D300 was set to ISO 200, opened the aperture to f2.8, changed the lens to autofocus, and set the limit switch on the telephoto so it wouldn't focus through the whole macro range.

My early initial impressions of the autofocus was confirmed with my first few photos - quick, quiet and sure focus locked on easily with the D300 (using the central focus point). In fact, it locked on so quick that I had to re-check my focusing to make sure that I hadn't left it on manual focus! Nice.

And the results when the images were downloaded and checked on the computer in Aperture afterwards? Just fantastic. Very, very pleased with the results wide open. I will definitely be using it for my wedding work.

And what about the bokeh from the lens (the quality of the out-of-focus background)? Well, I'd have to be honest and say it isn't as creamy or as smooth as the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 I used to have - but then again it isn't completely horrible either.

On a scale of 10, I'd give it a 7 - probably on a par with the Nikkor 50mm f1.8. You can see for yourself the slightly hexagonal and blurry highlights you get from lit areas in the background - and you can also see the incredible sharpness you get from the actual subject (the side of Emily's hair) at f2.8.

I wouldn't hesitate at all to use this as a fast telephoto portrait lens wide-open, and stopped down a little for bride and groom 'couples' shots.

So am I please with the Nikkor 105mm f2.8D micro lens? Absolutely. An incredibly sharp macro lens, and a great wide-open telephoto prime for portraits. Who could ask for anything more?

Nikkor Micro 105mm f2.8D

2010-10-01T16:20:00.000+13:00

My 105mm f2.8D Micro (Macro) lens has arrived and I got a chance to take it outside this morning for a quick test.

Here it is attached to my D300 and focused out to 1:1 magnification. It's a solid feeling lens, and the auto focus is quick and reasonably silent - although for macro use it's more likely to be used in manual focus.

To facilitate said manual focusing, the 105mm has a large rubber focusing ring that is nicely ribbed, with a smooth action (as you would expect for a macro lens).

It uses 52mm filters, which you can see in the picture already attached to the front of the lens. And, as you can also see, it's a reasonably hefty lens - bigger than my 18-70mm zoom lens, and a lot heavier (although I wouldn't call it a 'heavy' lens at all).

Since I haven't done a lot of this macro stuff, I wasn't expecting too much from my first attempt. I read a few on-line articles that suggested setting the lens to 1:1 magnification and using your body to move the camera/lens in and out of focus. So that's what I did. And it worked - although it's a very tricky manoeuvre because even at f22 the depth of field in the viewfinder can be measured in millimeters! Breath and the insect you're focusing on goes out of focus.

I chased a white butterfly around the garden for a while, and eventually managed to snaffle a few quick shots. With an ISO of 400 and aperture of f22 I was getting 1/250th shutter speeds, so I took several shots in quick succession, hoping that at least one of them would be sharp! Fortunately, one or two were.

To calm the nerves I also took some flower photos (they don't move as much as insects). It was still tricky staying at 1:1 magnification and moving the camera in and out to achieve focus, even for flowers. Next time I think I'll use a tripod for the flowers. That should increase my rate of 'keepers'?

My favorite (and most successful) shot of the morning (IMHO) was a fly sitting on a leaf having a drink of dew. It looked to me like he was blowing a bubble, and that's exactly what my daughter said when she saw the shot on the computer later that morning. I'm very happy with this shot, and deem my first shoot with the Nikkor 105mm f2.8D Micro lens to be a success!

I'm also going to try it out as a 'portrait' lens, and see how it performs around the f2.8 to f4 region for my wedding work. If I'm pleased with the results using it as a fast telephoto at f2.8, then I'll be a very happy camper! A stellar macro lens and a fast portrait prime in the same lens... what more could you ask for?

Update and iPhone

2010-09-27T09:47:00.000+13:00

Well, I'm still a Nikon user... and I don't say that with any regret. I'm proud to be a Nikonian, and have even added to my Nikkor lenses in the last few days (more on that later).

My Canon 5D is still away at the repairers, and the prognosis is not great :-( He has never seen this sort of problem before, and is unsure as to how to proceed with the repair at this stage. He has a couple of theories as to what 'might' be wrong, but until he gets another 5D body in for repair, can't really 'test' these theories out. So we (I) play the waiting game, and the jury is still out on the 5D.

So, with decisions about which kit to continue on with (almost) made, I decided on my next lens purchase... an iPhone!

Wait - let me explain. It's not really as crazy as it sounds. Well OK, maybe it's a bit crazy. But as per usual, there's a (little) method to my madness.

No, it's not really my next lens purchase. In fact, it's not really a lens purchase at all - even though it has a 2MP camera (I'm not going to be using my iPhone as a backup at weddings anytime soon).

Having sold a bunch of lenses, and with money in my account to purchase a lens with, my thoughts had been geared towards getting a super wide angle for landscapes. I though seriously about the Tokina 14-24mm f4, but couldn't find anything second-hand in my price range. Same with the Nikkor 14-24mm f4 as well, which was even more expensive.

Being an Apple enthusiast, I've always wanted an iPhone - but have never had the money to drop down on one. But now I did... And the smart phone I was using (Palm Treo) was a very old model, on the old network, which Telecom (NZ's major phone carrier) is due to terminate in the next year. So a new phone was in the pipeline anyway. Why not make it an iPhone?

To cut a long story short, that's what I've done with half of the lens money - purchased a 16Gig 3G iPhone on Trademe. And I'm in love! What took me so long? Well OK, I know what took me so long ($$), but I'm now glad I've finally got one. What an amazing phone!

And as for the other half of the lens money... well, you know that lens purchase I mentioned earlier... it should be turning up any moment. A 105mm f2.8D Nikkor Macro lens - another bargain off Trademe.

Don't ask me how I can turn money for a super-wide angle lens into an iPhone and a macro lens? It's just a gift I have... :-)

Canon vs Nikon

2010-08-18T14:14:00.000+12:00

I don't mean to be boring... I HATE the whole Canon vs Nikon debate. But unfortunately, that's what it's boiled down to for me in the last day or so. Let me explain...

I've talked about reassessing my camera kit in the last few posts - and I'd gone a good way to achieving just that. The 24mm f2.8 Nikkor has been sold, as has the 85mm f1.8, 75-300mm f4/5.6 and the Sony A200 DSLR with Minolta 35-70mm f4. I've just got the Tokina 19-35mm f3.5/4.5 to go.

I'd decided that with the money I made from the sales, I would get a wide-angle lens for my Nikon D300 (the Tokina 12-24mm f4 is the front runner). I've been looking around on the internet for a few days while all the selling had been going on, and was almost going to make a purchase, when I came across my Canon 5D body. It's been in storage for about a year because the top LCD and inside viewfinder info had stopped working, but I didn't really have the money to get it checked out/fixed. But now I have...

So, having been convinced just a few days ago that I was a happy Nikon shooter, the Canon 5D has thrown a spanner in the works!

I've sent the body away to a camera repairer and asked him to give me a quote for repair. If it's not astronomical then I will go ahead with the repair - and then I really will have a decision to make.

Fully functional, the Canon 5D is a beautiful camera to use, with a full framer sensor and ergonomics that I really love using. And given the fact that I'm still paying the thing off (and will be for quite some time), I really need to be using it - don't I?

What makes the decision even harder - especially for wedding shooting, is the fact that my assistant who helps me when I shoot weddings owns some of the best glass you can get for Canons (24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8) and I'm sure she would let me use them. So I wouldn't necessarily have to buy any glass for the 5D (although I would). That's the kind of quality glass that I can't even dream of getting for my Nikon - not in the foreseeable future at least.

Of course this is all dependent on the cost of the 5D's repair. If it's a few hundred dollars then I'll go for it. Any more than that, and I'll have to think even more seriously. But even so, I really should get it fixed while I can.

If I get it fixed, and if it's a reasonable price, then I may be moving back to Canon! Boy oh boy. Never say Never!

Nikkor 24mm f2.8D lens review

2010-08-11T13:44:00.001+12:00

Nikkor 24mm f2.8D on the mighty Nikon D300!

As per my previous post, my beloved 24mm f2.8D is up for sale - and as of today, has actually sold! So before it goes to it's new owner :-( I thought I'd better do a quick review of it!

This won't be a brick wall and newspaper type pixel-peeper review, but more of a practical user-experience review of my impressions of this little lens. And the first comment to make is that it is, indeed, a small lens. It doesn't make much of an impression on the semi-pro D300, and all but disappears when you put the vertical grip on the camera.

That said, because it is all metal and glass (made in Japan, not plastic from Thailand), it has good heft and weight, and is very useable on the heavier mid-range to pro Nikon bodies. On the DX format bodies such as the D300 it has a field-of-view equivalent to a 36mm lens in traditional 35mm film camera terms, while, of course, on the full frame FX bodies like the D700 or D3x, the 24mm is - a 24mm!

Although thought of traditionally as a wide angle 'landscape' lens, the 24mm on a DX body becomes more of a 'standard' photojournalist lens (many photographers were famous for using 35mm prime lenses in the film days) and can easily be used for portraits - even wide open.

This shot of my son Joshua (at home recovering from the flu), was shot at f2.8 - and is tack sharp on his eyes and face. As an 'environmental portrait' lens, the 24mm on a cropped sensor digital camera is superb.

At f5.6 to 8, optimal sharpness across the whole frame is achieved, and I couldn't imagine many other lenses would be sharper. The 24mm f2.8D is well known as a sharp optic, and I can see why. Colour, tone and contrast is also excellent, and flare is well handled due to the relatively simple construction of the lens elements.

I should also mention that though not quite silent, the screw-type autofocus isn't overly noisy - and is quick and accurate given the small distance it needs to turn to obtain focus. As with all earlier Nikkor AF lenses, the 24mm f2.8D has an actual aperture ring so f-stops can be selected manually if needed, and it also has a distance scale window with an infra-red focusing mark, and distance markings for f11, f16 and f22. the manual focusing ring at the front of the lens, although smallish, has a chunky rubber surface, and rotates smoothly. It only takes a quarter turn from closest focusing to infinity. And speaking of close focus, the 24mm focuses down to 30cm, as can be seen in the shot of the 'Viento' logo on the back of my car. This was also taken at f2.8 and as you can see, the background blurs out of focus smoothly - creating reasonably creamy bokeh (although admittedly this isn't probably what this lens was designed for).

The Nikkor 24mm f2.8D really is a beautiful lens that produces fantastic results. Stopped down to f5.6 or 8 it's sharp across the frame, producing true colours and great value in a very small package. If I was shooting landscapes with a D700 full frame camera, or was a photojournalist who took a lot of environmental portraits with my D300, then I wouldn't even consider selling this lens, it would be on the camera 90% of the time.

But as a landscape and wedding shooter, who isn't interested in street photography, the 24mm focal length is an 'odd' size for me - so it is no longer in my bag.

I will be sad to see it go, but I also hope that its next owner gets a lot of use out of it and takes some cracking images with it. It's capable of all that - and more.

Pssst... anybody wanna buy a Sony A200?

2010-08-11T12:55:00.000+12:00

For the last few posts (and over the last month) I've been raving about the Sony A200 digital SLR. And with good reason. It's a cracker of a camera, and I've thoroughly enjoyed using it. So why the heck, you might ask, am I selling it!

Very good question... and one answer might be "Because that's what I do". I buy and sell cameras. Mostly.

Another answer might be "Because I really needed to qualify what I used, and why I used it." And the logical conclusion to this technological naval-gazing, ultimately, was that I'm a Nikon shooter (love my D300), so the Sony A200 - as much fun as it was - had to go.

And really, that's my answer, and I'm sticking to it.

Winter is always a time for me to take stock of my gear (quite literally), and look back over the last wedding season to decide what worked, what didn't, and what I can improve on. Perhaps because I purchased the Sony, I've also been looking very seriously at my whole system - what I'm using, what I'm not using - and maybe even more importantly, what I'd like to be using. Quite frankly, the answers surprised me.

I've decided that 1.) I am a Nikon shooter. So the Sony has to go. If I want a second body it will be a Nikon - and in the meantime I will continue to take my wife's D70 with me on shoots as backup. It's been working fine like this, and I see no reason to change it for the next wedding season. Together with this decision is the fact that I am still very happy with the D300, and see no reason to 'upgrade' the camera at all. I don't feel the need to go 'full frame', and have always been more than happy with the quality (and file sizes) I get with the APS-C sized sensor - so that's another decision in the D300's favor. Nor do I yearn for HD video capabilities in my SLR's - so that gives me another few years grace from upgrading. I'm sure that the next camera I get will have HD video capability, but not because I want it - simply because all cameras will have it as standard whether we want it or not :-(

I've also decided that 2.) Most of my lenses are redundant! I've finally realised (after 25 years) that there is a huge difference between lenses I want to own, and lenses I'll actually use. If I'm being brutally honest (and I am), there are currently only two lenses that I use (regularly) when I go to a wedding - my Nikkor 18-70mm standard zoom, and my Nikkor 50mm f1.8 prime. If I use any other lens, I make myself get it out and use it. So what am I carrying the rest of them around for?

My 24mm f2.8D is a gorgeous lens - but it isn't wide enough for landscape work on a DX body like the D300, so I don't use it. Likewise, my 85mm f1.8 is a beautiful lens, but again I find the focal length (135mm) on the D300 less than practical for my style of shooting. I much prefer the 50mm (75mm) view and so find myself using that instead. On traditional 35mm film cameras, the 24mm and 85mm prime lenses are 'classic' lenses to own and use - so I own them. But I'm finding that, on a DX digital body, I'm not using them.

Do I keep them for when I go 'full frame' with a Nikon D700? Well, no, because I've already decided that I have no intention of changing to a full-frame camera anytime soon (never say never), so I need to look at what I might actually use on the camera I have.

So the final decision is that 3.) I need to buy an ultra-wide lens for my landscape photography. As mentioned I can, and do, shoot weddings with just two lenses - and I am more than happy with the results. But when I go out to take my own landscape images, I am constantly wishing I could go wider. My current lens collection is lacking an ultra-wide for my landscapes.

After a week or so of internet trolling and review reading, I've decided to sell my 24mm, 85mm and 70-300mm f4/5.6 ED - and get a Tokina 12-24mm f4 ultra-wide angle lens. Why this particular lens? Well, for a start, with the money I get from selling the other lenses, the Tokina will be in my price range (the Nikkor 12-24mm won't be) - and of all the third party lens manufacturers, I like Tokina's quality the best (Tokina was started by ex Nikon lens engineers who wanted to make their own range). I'm not an ultra-wide junky, so the 12-24mm (18-36mm 35mm equivalent) focal range is a good compromise (as opposed to the 10-20mm Sigma which was the other lens I was interested in).

If, between now and then, a used Nikkor 12-24mm comes on-line in my price range, then I'll probably grab that instead. But if I buy brand-new, then it will be the Tokina.

So my Nikon kit will go down from a 6 lens kit to a three lens kit - but it will be three lenses that I will actually use. The other good news? A much lighter camera bag :-)

Landscapes with the Tokina 19-35mm and A200

2010-08-03T21:58:00.000+12:00

Finally got a chance to get out and take some landscapes tonight with the new lens. It's been pouring down with rain over the weekend, so I spent a frustrating time watching the rain instead of out taking photos. But tonight that was all forgotten.

Went out after work to a beach not too far from hone - along the coast road. It's a place that I have taken wedding photos at before, but never explored it for my own landscape images.

I went out there with a pre-conceived idea of what I was going to capture - and as per usual, as soon as I arrived all those ideas went out the window. There are some very cool tidal pool areas to explore, but when I arrived the tide was in, and the waves were pounding against the shore (not surprisingly given the amount of aforementioned rain we've had).

So I had to re-evaluate what I was going to shoot, and came across this very cool log formation well above the tide. A perfect subject for the Tokina to really sink its teeth into!

I was getting some very dramatic sky, and had fortunately fitted the lens with a Cokin Grey ND Graduate filter. I use the larger 'P' type filters, so there was no vignetting in the corners, even with the Tokina set to its full 19mm (which is pretty much where I left it all evening).

I also put the A200 on a tripod (turning Steady Shot 'off' on the Sony), and set the aperture to f16 for plenty of depth-of-field. I also focused manually on the log to make sure that was my sharpest area of focus.

As expected, the Tokina captured some beautiful images (matched with the Sony A200 of course), and was a joy to use. Even with the sun full in the frame, flare wasn't too big of an issue (the ND Grey Grad filter helps to cut down glare as well), and the resulting images are sharp, punchy, contrasty and bang-on in terms of color rendition.

The more I use the A200, the more I enjoy using the A200. I'm getting used to its quirks, and loving the images I'm getting out of it.

Sony have a host of new cameras soon to be released (at Photokina at the end of this month), and the buzz about them is very positive. Match that with some fantastic, but cheap, Minolta and Tokina lenses, and you have a winning formula as far as I'm concerned.

Sony, I think you may have a new convert...

First images with Tokina 19-35mm f3.4/4.5

2010-07-30T15:54:00.000+12:00

Lens arrived this morning, and I was able to take a few quick shots at lunchtime to get some very quick first impressions.

First, my copy looks mint - very clean body and exceptional glass, so I'm very happy on that score.

Also, the quality of the fit and finish on the Tokina is indeed impressive for a third-party consumer-grade lens offering. It looks, and feels, like it is built to last. Even the lens hood seems to be made from a thicker, tougher plastic than many of the Nikon hoods I own. Very nice.

The lens handles nicely on the A200 - it's about the right size and weight, and the rubber grip around the zoom is, well, nice and grippy :-) It doesn't make too much noise when focusing (no more than my Minolta 35-70mm f4) and latched on to focus quickly (outside in bright daylight). So far, so good.

I've purchased this as a landscape lens, so my initial test was with this in mind. I set the A200 to ISO 100, shooting RAW, and worked in aperture priority with the aperture set to f8. This should give me a fairly good idea as to the overall sharpness on the Tokina when used for landscapes. When I actually get it out into the field for some real landscape work, I'll probably go to at least f11 or f16 - and use a tripod - but for a quick test using the lens hand-held, f8 was fine.

As you can see from the few images posted here, f8 was more than enough for back-to-front sharp images. These were all shot at the 19mm setting - although as other reviewers have noted about this lens, the metadata would suggest that the Tokina is actually shooting at 20mm?

That would mean I'm getting an equivalent field of view of a 30mm lens in traditional film terms - not 'ultra' wide, but wide enough. And because the Tokina is a full-frame compatible lens, once I upgrade to a full-frame Sony camera, then the 19/20mm will really be a 19/20mm!

But talk of 'ultra-wide' aside, the first few images I've taken with this lens on the A200 have been very positive. Really nice colors, good contrast, lots of detail, and great front-to-back sharpness from the f8 aperture. Initial impressions are that the Tokina 19-35mm well deserves its legendary status as the 'plastic fantastic'.

Tokina 19-35mm coming

2010-07-29T21:13:00.000+12:00

After much deliberation, and a good deal of internet searching, I weakened and purchased a Tokina wide angle lens for my Sony A200.

And here it is, the Tokina 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 wide angle zoom lens. And although it's considered to sit at the 'consumer' end of the Tokina line, the general consensus form internet reviews and actual users is that this lens consistently punches above its weight, and is a match for many of the more expensive wide angle zooms on the market.

Made largely of plastic, but with a metal mount, the lens does have ED elements, and Tokina uses Hoya glass (I've always been a big fan of their filters) for relatively true colours.

It's also internal focusing, so the barrel doesn't change length when zooming, and the front element doesn't rotate - making the use of filters for landscape photography (my prime reason for getting this lens) a pleasant experience. That's pretty impressive for a lens that sits at Tokina's 'consumer' end, and cost me $200NZ in mint used condition.

Of all the third party branded lens manufacturers, Tokina has the best reputation for building solid, built-to-last lenses that can take a lickin and keep on tickin. And even though this isn't from their 'pro' line, I have no doubt it will be a solid, well built unit that will last a lifetime.

From all that I've read, sharpness is decent, even wide open, but gets bitingly sharp at around f8 (as do most lenses) - perfect landscape f-stop territory. And although not a 'fast' or 'silent' focusing lens, it will be plenty fast enough, and plenty silent enough, for all the landscapes I'll want to take with it :-)

It's arriving tomorrow, so I'll get a chance to use it over the weekend (all going well weather-wise). Will then post a hands-on user report, with images. Can't wait.

A few more reasons to love the Sony A200

2010-07-19T12:36:00.000+12:00

Continue to be very happy with my new Sony A200 and Minolta 35-70mm f4 combo. Went to Reefton (an hours drive from where I live) this weekend with the family, and we stopped at on old train memorial to have lunch. The kids started to play on the train and I couldn't help myself - perfect photo opportunity!

The sharpness of this lens is just crazy - and the colours are fantastic.

Having said that, the Alpha 200 isn't the fastest at processing images - takes a while to write to the card, even in jpeg mode. I do find myself having to wait for the images to write before I can review - which would be annoying if I was using it to shoot a wedding as my main camera. It won't replace my Nikon D300 anytime soon shooting weddings.

This image of Joshua has an almost HDR quality to it - even though it's pretty much straight out of the camera. I have the Dynamic Range Optimiser on the Sony set to 'Standard', and I don't think it's applied to the RAW file anyway? Anyway, the colours zing from this lens/sensor combination. Couldn't be happier with the results.

While we were having lunch, a very well-fed Weka (NZ native flightless bird) came out of the bush to 'share' some of our food. Must be my week for bird photography as well. He wasn't shy, and came within a couple of feet of us to get the food we dropped for him. I easily filled the frame with the 75mm end (105mm equiv.) and took a few 'portrait' shots of him as well. The 35-70mm f4 is turning out to be a great portrait lens. I'm sold!

Cookie came to Visit

2010-07-16T18:52:00.001+12:00

Got a shock on Thursday afternoon when my daughter came in from outside saying there was a parrot in our garden!

I grabbed my camera, and sure enough, a parrot (Rainbow Lorikeet to be exact) had perched itself on top of some trellis fencing we have in our back yard. It posed there for a while while the kids and I snapped away (using my 70-300mm Nikkor on the D300), and then proceeded to follow my son inside the house! A very tame parrot indeed.

I found it some apple to eat - which turns out was the right thing to give it - and then it spent the afternoon using me as a tree (it took a liking to me for some reason), and pooping everywhere in the kitchen.

Turns out, her name is 'Cookie' and she belonged to friends of ours (not that we knew this at the time) who had lost her the night before. A quick call to the SPCA, and a follow up from an advert left by Cookie's rightful owners in the local paper, and she was back with her rightful family before tea.

Almost felt sorry to see her go. We kind of bonded over the course of the afternoon. Being used as a tree and shat on by a friendly parrot, makes a guy feel closer to nature somehow.

We won't be getting a bird anytime soon.

Minolta 35-70mm f4 Quick Test Pt2

2010-07-04T19:10:00.000+12:00

Went out this afternoon to put the a200 and 35-70mm through their paces with the other side of my photography - landscapes.

I set the camera to f11 to give me good depth of field, and probably the sweet spot in terms of overall lens sharpness. Then I headed out to the coast road, and to our local wharf area.

There was some nice low late afternoon winter light coming in off the sea, so I stopped at a popular spot along the coast to take grab a view of the coastline. Even though the 35mm end equates to around 52mm (normal field of view) in traditional terms, I still got enough of the scene in to suggest an expansive landscape. It may not be ultra-wide, but it's good enough.

Although only really a 'grab' shot, I do like the light coming in from the left, forming those shadowed curves in the sea from the breaking waves. And not surprisingly, at f11 everything is super sharp - from front to back. I'm liking this little lens more and more every time I use it.

Then it was off to the wharf. There are a couple of old cranes that have been a part of the Greymouth urban landcsape for as long as anyone can remember - but they are in danger of being torn down now by the council. They are old - and probably dangerous (they are fenced off from the public), but make a great subject. I decided I'd better photograph them before they disappear.

One criticism leveled at the 35-70mm f4 lens is that it's prone to flare. The lens hood that is supposed to go with it is very small and doesn't give much protection from glare, so I decided to use a deeper rubber one instead. I shot with the sun just outside the frame to 'torture-test' the lens, and although I did get flare in some of the images, overall I thought it handled my 'worst-case-scenario' very well.

I also decided to shoot with the sun full in the frame, and was surprised with the result. The sensor on the Sony handled it beautifully, and I got my favorite shot of the evening.

The late afternoon sun was casting some beautiful golden light, ideal for shooting this building down at an historical park at the end of the wharf. Still on f11, the 35-70mm is a beautifully sharp lens, and I really love the colours it produces. Very true to life - yet quite vibrant at the same time.

As I was leaving, I saw that the building silhouetted nicely with a couple of cabbage trees, and I couldn't resist taking a few last shots. I have the a200 set on 'standard' Dynamic Range Optimiser, yet I was still surprised at the amount of detail retained in the black shadows of the RAW file - even though the histogram of the jpeg on the lcd screen showed clipping.

So I've used the Sony a200 over the weekend now, paired with the Minolta 35-70mm f4 lens - a combination that all-up cost me $350.00NZ. I've used it to take portraits, landscapes, and macros - tortured it with sun, and checked it out for sharpness. And as far as I'm concerned it's passed everything with flying colours (almost literally :-) Am I happy with the purchase? You bet I am.

Minolta 35-70mm f4 Quick test

2010-07-03T17:46:00.001+12:00

Was busy at home today, but managed to get out this afternoon and fire off a few quick portrait shots with the 35-70mm f4. Since the 35 to 70mm on the A200 relates to a 50 to 105mm (roughly) in 35mm film terms, it's really the ideal portrait/candid style lens. And it's so tiny! Uses a 49mm filter thread. Here it is attached to the A200. Doesn't look too out of place because the A200 isn't that big either!

Took my model (my ever willing daughter Emily) outside and stayed about 1.5meters away to gauge how a subject would fill the frame at 35, 50 and 70mm.

The first image was shot at the 35mm end, and this equates to about a 52mm (normal) focal length in traditional terms. Opened the aperture up to f4, cause I always shoot portraits wide open - and had a reasonable distance between Emily and the background (about 6 meters). Not surprisingly, f4 hasn't blurred the background out hugely - but man-oh-man is she sharp! Great overall sharpness, even wide open. Oh yeah, that's what I like.

Now we have f4 at 50mm (75mm equiv). Still amazingly sharp, and now, because of the change in focal length, the background bokeh is starting to work for us. Still not great, but softening nonetheless. Nothing else has changed in terms of mine or Emily's position. I simply zoomed in closer with the lens. Really great colours for an overcast day, and did I mention how sharp the image is overall!?

And finally, f4 at 70mm (105mm equiv). Background has softened up more - although it's fairly harsh in terms of bokeh. But Emily is still tack sharp, and I would have no hesitation in using this lens wide open for portraiture. Of course I still haven't used it extensively, but early indications are that it is as good a lens as the user reports on Dyxum.com would indicate it to be. Very pleased :-)

Also finished with a quick test of the stabilisation that Sony uses - Steady Shot. And early indications would suggest that this too works as it should.

Took one shot inside at 10th of a second without Steady Shot turned on..

and then another shot straight after with Steady Shot turned on...

The results are - quite plainly - clear :-) Steady Shot does make a measurable difference, with pretty good results down to one 10th of a second (using the 35-70mm zoomed all the way to 70mm). You can't actually see any difference while you are taking the shot, although when you turn Steady Shot on, a small bar graph appears in the viewfinder to show you that it's working. Wait until the bars move down to the smallest, and take the shot (it's easier to do that it is to explain). Anyway, seems to work a treat, and I intend to simply leave it on all the time, unless I mount the camera to a tripod (in which case it is recommended that you turn it off).

First shots with Sony A200

2010-07-02T18:42:00.000+12:00

The Minolta 35-70mm f4 arrived yesterday, and I got a chance at lunch time today to get a couple of quick shots with my new kit.

The lens has a quasi 'macro' function - when you flick a switch at the 70mm position it takes you into 'macro' mode, which you then have to focus manually. There is a hack for this that requires a little lens surgery so that you can use autofocus in the macro mode - but I think I'll leave it as it is. I don't think macro is something I'll use the lens for a lot, so I don't mind focusing manually the few times I have to.

But having said all that, it was the macro mode on the lens that I decided to try out at lunchtime.

I've been reading a few lens user reviews over at Dyxum.com (great site for Minolta/Sony users), and many write about the Minolta 'look' to certain lenses. If that's true (and the 35-70mm f4 is said to have 'the look'), then I like it - very much. Clear, saturated, yet true-to-life colours - the 35-70mm performed very well. I only took a handful of shots, but the ones I took were very pleasing. And the macro mode worked well, even with manual focusing - although the manual focus ring itself is very small. Workable, but small.

The shots here were taken in macro, ISO 100, f8 @ 125th (or there abouts), and while the depth of field is pretty shallow, the area of focus is bitingly sharp! Bokeh looks good too. Reasonably creamy and not too harsh.

The A200 handled the colours - especially the vibrant purples, exceptionally well, and overall I was very pleased with my first few shots. I will take more this weekend, using the lens in its 'normal' range (i.e. not macro), to give it a full test of sharpness etc.

And in one final note: I've set the A200 to shoot in Adobe RGB, using the single central focus point, auto ISO (which will limit its range from ISO 100 to 400), auto WB, and shooting RAW. Pretty much how I set up all the cameras I use - although I play around a lot more with these settings on my Nikon D300. I'll probably tend to leave the Sony pretty much as-is? Anyway, more soon.

Sony Alpha 200

2010-06-30T14:59:00.000+12:00

Just bought a new 'toy' - the Sony Alpha 200 DSLR. Couldn't help myself, as it was going for an absolute song, brand-new, at a local electronics store. They were selling it without the lens (body only) so were basically giving it away. Picked up the body for $299NZ (about $200US).

Did a bit of reading up on it before handing over he cash, but for that price it was really a no brainer! And even though the a200 is now a discontinued model, it's got everything I want in a 'back up' system, and then some.

Obviously based on the Minolta DSLR's of old (like the 5D and 7D - yes, Minolta had them before Canon did), the Sony is packed with all the features I like, and none of the features I don't like. For example - no Live View (yeah) and no Movie mode (double yeah). But it does have 10.2 MP (just about right I reckon), image stabilisation - Sony call it 'Steady Shot' - built into the body (yeah), a self cleaning sensor (double yeah), and a very sexy vertical grip that I will get eventually (triple yeah)! It's also compatible with all the Minolta AF lenses as well as the new Sony ones (of course).

Speaking of lenses - because it doesn't come with one, I've purchased an old Minolta 35-70mm f4 macro AF lens off of Trademe just to get me going. The lens has very good reviews on the minolta users sites, and is known as the 'mini beercan'. If you know anything about Minolta lenses, you'll be aware of a 70-210mm f4 lens known affectionately as the 'Beercan' because of its looks and size. It also has great optics. I owned the 70-210mm f4 Beercan for a short time when I had a Minolta 600si film camera (what an amazing film camera that was), and am looking forward to getting another one now that I have the Sony Alpha 200.

Told you the vertical grip was sexy! I like more area to hang on to with any camera, but especially with the lighter, more plastic cameras. And the a200 is a light, plastic camera - but in a good way. Of course, I have to qualify all this by saying I actually haven't shot with it yet :-) The 35-70mm f4 hasn't arrived. But I do have the body in my hands - and I have used its younger sister, the Sony Alpha 100. I reviewed it for D-Photo when it was first released (about 4yrs or so ago), and really enjoyed the experience. Gave it a very positive review (from what I can remember). So I'm expecting as good, if not better things, from the a200.

Yes, I know that the low-light, high ISO capabilities of the Sony could be better (I'll try to leave it on ISO 400 or below), but it's all relative. I still remember shooting film and never daring to go past 400. And for those times when I go over 400, I've got Noise Ninja to deal with it anyway. And RAW - always shoot in RAW for better noise control.

I love the styling of the Sony (Minolta) DSLR's - with clever touches such as eye control AF (bring the camera to your eye and the lens begins to focus), a beautiful lcd display that automatically adjusts its orientation when you switch between portrait or landscape composition, and, of course, the in-built image stabilisation that means every lens you own is now an IS lens. OK, it's debatable as to whether in-lens or in-camera stabilisation is better - but at least with the Sony you get it ALL the time. With Canon and Nikon you pay extra to have it in the lens.

I'm looking forward to using it (this weekend), and posting some images, together with my initial shooting experiences. But as I said right at the start of this post, for $200US you can't really go wrong!?

Lens rundown & new landscapes.

2010-06-19T14:21:00.000+12:00

Ok, so the studio didn't actually happen.

Trust me, I looked at it very long and very hard - and was almost to the point of signing up for a space to lease. But I did the math several times, and the best case scenario (in the short term at least) was only break-even, for a heck of a lot more work! So I decided - rather wisely I must say in hindsight - to flag the idea for now. Just as well too, because since then my design work has gone crazy and there aren't enough hours in the day just doing that. Starting a photography studio on top of that would have been crazy!

So I've been getting out and taking some landscapes - now that the wedding season is over. And I've got someone joining me on some my excursions now too. My 10yr old daughter, Emily, is still excited about photography, so I decided to encourage her further by taking her out with me a bit more, and getting her a 'real' digital camera, a Canon 10D.

We've gone out a couple of times, and I'm really glad I got her the 10D. It's still a great camera, with a 6MP sensor and the rugged DSLR chassis that will take the knocks without being too heavy for her. The 'pro' thumb wheel on the back for quick selection is also a big plus.

Her 10D came with a Canon 50mm f1.8 prime, which is a great combination. Granted she is a little limited in terms of focal length compared to what a zoom could offer her, but at the moment it's just about getting used to using the camera and all its controls. Eventually I will get her an 18-70mm zoom - probably the Sigma f2.8-4.5. Something light, but still with decent image quality.

For my own gear, I've settled on a middle-of-the-road kit for the time being - although that's been peppered with some very nice primes. I am still using the Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 'kit' lens with my D300, and still enjoy using it. It's a light, fast focusing, silent lens which I have no problem using wide open at any focal length. It's on the D300 80% of the time, and I can't really fault the images I create with it.

Recently (like two weeks ago) I added the Nikkor 70-300mm f4-5.6 ED zoom to my arsenal, to give me more telephoto reach in a zoom lens. I haven't used it all that much yet, but I owned this lens a few years ago when I had my D70 kit and found it to be a very good performer - especially up to 250mm. I don't do a heck of a lot of long telephoto stuff - but it's nice to have the option now for when I do. I'll do a lens test and post that soon, giving my impressions and some examples of what it can do etc.

So my zoom range now covers from 18 to 300mm with mid-range glass. I'll find it hard to replace the 18-70mm - for the price it's just a heck of a good lens, but I will eventually replace the 70-300mm with the 'pro' Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8. That will probably be my only lens purchase next year from the wedding season takings.

To supplement my zooms, I have a trio of primes: 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8. On my D300 the 24mm becomes a 35mm (still ok for wide-ish landscapes, and a great walk-around street lens), the 50mm becomes a 75mm f1.8 (fantastic for portraits), while the 85mm turns into a 130mm f1.8 (roughly).
I got the 85mm towards the end of the wedding season, so didn't really use it as much as I would have liked, whereas I use the 50mm all the time, and surprisingly have been making good use of the 24mm as well.

I got the 24mm really cheap because it had been banged on the front and a chip taken out of the filter thread. I 'ummed' and 'arred' over getting it, but in the end thought 'what the heck' for the price I was paying for it. Turned out to be a bargain, and a great lens. Because it's a prime, which doesn't use many lens elements, and because it's so small and well-made, it can take the knocks and come out smiling. I even dropped it myself on the first wedding I shot! No problems though. Just put it back on the camera and away it went. Sharp, clear, contrasty images every time.

I'm very happy with the primes I have, matched with the D300 Nikon body - using the 18-70mm as my main zoom lens. The only lens I will 'eventually' replace will be the 70-300mm - with the 70-200mm f2.8 VR. The 'second generation' of this lens was released this year, so a lot of first generation lenses are finding their way to the internet trading sites. Because I shoot with a D300 I don't need the newer lens, so I'll save myself a couple of grand and opt for the first generation model.

And as much as I would like to own a 17-55mm f2.8 Nikkor, i really don't want to pay the $2500.00NZ that it would cost to get one. Are they really $2000 better than my 18-70mm kit lens? Maybe. But somehow, I don't think so.

Wadda ya know... a new post

2010-03-31T10:44:00.001+13:00

Ok, so it's been a few months since I wrote here. I've been busy shooting weddings - none of which I've posted! But I've also been doing a bit of 'soul searching' (oh, sounds a bit deep), and some serious thinking about my photographic future.

It all started before Christmas, when I shot my brothers wedding in Christchurch (which I did post). I met a guy who had been running a wedding photography business in Christchurch ('hi Alan'), but was now running a restaurant instead. He mentioned that he had some wedding albums and other gear left over that I might be interested in, if I wanted to take a look.

Didn't think much about it at the time, but early in the new year we were back in Christchurch, and I contacted him to take a look. Long story short - it's probably changed my life!

Turns out he had an entire studio's worth of gear to 'get rid of', as well as dozens of Italian Leather-bound albums of the absolute highest quality. Did I want them? Does a bear *you know what* in the woods!

Once I got all this gear home, however, I needed to sit down and think seriously about what I was going to do with it all. The most obvious thing, of course, was to start my own studio.

Easier said than done though - right? Of course the big issues are where, and how much. No good if you can't find a space, or can't afford any of the spaces that you do find. And then there's the issues of branding, marketing, costing, selling etc,

It's been a couple of months since then, and I think I've got a handle on most of the questions and issues I had at the beginning. I've finally found a space that will work as a studio, with only relatively minor tweaking, and I'm off to the accountant in half an hour to work through the other aspect of that - can I afford it! I must admit that initially I was very pessimistic about the cost of it all, but my accountant seems to be exactly the opposite, and meeting with him initially was the turning point in my decision to really go for it.

I've gone back and forth with the whole 'name' thing, trying to think of something catchy/cool/funny/relevant. But in the end, I keep coming back to Lorimer Photography Studio. Kinda says it all really. And we, as photographers, get to be known on a personal level with our clients as much as anything else. So why try and brand it as something other than what it really is - me running a photography studio.

My plan is to continue on with the Graphic Design working from my current office at the printing firm who are my major contract, and run the studio almost by 'appointment only'. Perhaps doing an 80/20 split of my time between the printing base for design work, and studio space in town for photography. Of course, I hope that eventually 80/20 will become 70/30, then 60/40, and so on and so forth.

In the meantime, I still have to decide whether or not I can afford any of it. So it's off to the accountant... Wish me luck.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FS4 and my new blog

2010-01-11T22:51:00.006+13:00

I started a new blog last week: wayne-ayearinpictures.blogspot.com

It's part of my 'creative' new-years resolution to take more pictures. If I stick to it (and so far so good), then I will have to take at least one new photograph every day, for the rest of the year. That's a lot more than I took last year, and although rather daunting, it's started very well.

It has also meant that I now make sure I always have a camera with me. And for the sake of ease-of-use and sheer portability, that was always going to be a compact point-and-shoot. My weapon of choice is the Panasonic Lumix DMC - FS4 (and no, I don't know what all those letters stand for either?!)

But when I say 'weapon of choice', what I'm really saying is that it's the only point-and-shoot I own. I purchased it late last year on a whim (because it was cheap, and came with heaps of accessories), and I'd be lying if I said I didn't experience a good amount of 'buyers remorse' soon after purchasing it.

Don't get me wrong, I think Panasonic make some of the best point-and-shoots you can get. But the DMC-FS4 is the very basic, entry-level model with very limited user control. In fact, it really only functions using 'Scene' modes. Pretty crap, I thought, and left it in the box.

But - now I've got this new blog. And now I need to have a camera with me all the time. And now I have to actually use it. And boy, am I glad I did. Because it turns out the DMC-FS4 is an absolute cracker of a camera. A wee gem. And I'm loving using it. Not to mention the results I'm getting from it!

It may only have scene modes (and dozens of them), but they work brilliantly, and I'm not disappointed by the results from such a cheap camera. It doesn't have an optical viewfinder (they're junk on these wee compacts anyway), but does have a big, bright 2.5" lcd screen, with optional gridlines for aiding composition and keeping horizons straight. It also has image stabilization built-in (Panasonic call it Mega O.I.S.) as well as automatic ISO control - both working together to reduce blurry photos due to camera shake.

This was shot using the Panasonic's 'macro' setting (make sure the lens is set for wide angle otherwise macro doesn't work), and I'm just amazed that it allowed me to capture the fly, let alone produce a sharp image. This tiny little fly was on the leaf for all of a nano second, yet the result is tack sharp on the fly, and beautifully soft in the background. Wow!

And it was by no means a fluke - I got dozens of useable images, just from half an hour spent at lunchtime chasing insects around the garden. I don't know, but I reckon I'd be hard pressed to do that with my SLR?

But it's not just the macro's that have impressed me. Over the last 5 days I've taken indoor and outdoor portraits under varying lighting conditions, as well as landscapes - all using the various scene modes - and the camera has handled it all brilliantly.

Even in 'standard' mode, the colours are punchy and vibrant - the lens is sharp, contrasty and renders colour accurately. The exposures from the camera have been 99.9% accurate, without any need for exposure compensation (you can set +/- 2 stops), under some very tricky lighting conditions - from harsh sunlight to dark interiors. Check out my 'A Year in Pictures' blog for more examples of what the Lumix has been producing for me over the last week.

For a point-and-shoot camera that I was initially disappointed in due to its perceived lack of control, the Panasonic Lumix has turned out to be a stellar performer - under all conditions. Yes, I'm sure it has it's limitations. I'd love for the lens to go a little wider (it's a 33-132mm equivalent lens), and the ability to shoot RAW - but having said that, the jpegs it produces with its 8MP sensor look gorgeous! I'd also like it to be heavier - not so much plastic - but keep the same size (very pocketable).

Yet despite all that, and much to my surprise, I'm loving using the Panasonic DMC-FS4. And given that I have to take at least one image, every day, for the next 360 days, I hope to become even more impressed by this pocket-sized picture maker. If you're on the look out for a cheap, but very capable little point-and-shoot, then look no further than the Lumix DMC-FS4.

Merry Christmas to me...

2009-12-31T12:44:00.003+13:00

Had a wonderful Christmas over in Christchurch with family - ate too much and got heaps of cool stuff.

The only photography related gift, however, was something I got for myself. After watching Joe McNally over at Kelby Training, I thought I'd get his latest book on flash photography - "The Hot Shoe Diaries".

First things first - GET THIS BOOK! There you go, that was pretty easy, wasn't it?

But seriously, if you are at all interested in how to make your external flash give you a decent quality of light - then get this book. If you are scared of external flash (speedlights if you will), then get this book. If you are in any way interested in how great images are made, get this book. If you are a bit of a 'gear-head' and want to know the technical how's, why's and wherefores, get this book. If you like being creative with your photography, and want to learn from the best, then get this book. Trust me here will you - GET THIS BOOK!

McNally is a great teacher, as well as an amazing photographer - and he approaches the 'lessons' in a very readable way that keeps you laughing as well as learning. Yes, that's right - 'laughing'. He's a pretty funny guy (think Scott Kelby's photoshop books) so you never really feel like you've got a text book in your hands - even though that's what this will become. An invaluable text book for any photographer who wants to use their hot shoe flash(es) in a way that will do them (and you) justice.

Joe is a Nikon shooter (yahoo), who uses Nikon speedlights (the SB 800 and SB 900's) pretty much exclusively. Tie this in with Nikon's wireless CLR (Creative Lighting System) and you have a powerful studio-like lighting set up that you can use at almost any location. Throughout the book Joe uses anywhere from one SB 800 on-camera, to a whole bank of them for large group work - and everything in-between. If the resulting images, and their thorough explanation, don't get your creative juices flowing, then you're probably dead and don't know it yet :-)

Can Canon/Sony/Pentax/Olympus shooters get anything out of this book - you betcha! They all have their own speedlights, capable of similar (if not exactly the same) setups, so the same rules apply. He may use Nikon gear, but this ain't a Nikon only book by any means.

I've said it before, so I'll say it again. If you are a photographer - GET THIS BOOK!

Going Wide

2009-12-22T21:12:00.003+13:00

Still thinking a lot about lenses, since I will be buying one once I have a couple more weddings under my belt. A portrait lens is still on the cards (see last post), but I now have a new frontrunner, which is not a portrait lens in the true sense of the word.

My new 'fave' at the moment is the Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 EX HSM wide angle - which shocks and alarms even me on so many levels. First, it's a Sigma - and not a Nikkor, so I'm on shaky ground already. I make it a habit of only buying the manufacturers lenses for any body that I own (by and large), so what's with the Sigma? Well, for starters it has some pretty solid reviews (I've even reviewed it myself for DPhoto in the deep dark past), goes out to about as wide as it gets for a 'DX' (digitally designed) lens, and is about one third of the price of the equivalent Nikkor. And yes, now we see the 'real' reason for the change of heart ladies and gentleman - beggars really can't be choosers.

But seriously, I wouldn't be considering it if it didn't have some solid reviews behind it. Yes, I know the corners are a bit soft wide open, but most of the time I'll be shooting it at the 'optimal' f8(ish) range anyway - and besides, soft corners for any wedding/portrait work isn't necessarily a bad thing. And who shoots landscapes wide open? Not me (or you hopefully).

What got me thinking about going 'wide' for my next lens was a series of instructional videos I've been watching at Kelby Training (kelbytraining.com) by wedding pro David Visser. I've been watching him and Joe McNally, for their off-camera flash expertise (more on that soon), but you also get to see lenses used and resulting images taken. And a lot of David's wide angle wedding shots were really cool - using a 10-20mm (Canon) lens.

This thought was rather spookily reiterated on the last wedding I shot (this weekend just gone), where, due to bad weather, I could really have used an ultra-wide angle like the 10-20mm. I had a reasonably large bridal party (of 8), shot in the small confines of a verandah/porch to stay out of the rain! All the family formals had to be shot there too, and I only 'just' made it with the 18mm wide end of my 18-70mm zoom. Going out to 10mm would have been fantastic - but I didn't have that option.

Ultra-wides also give you a pretty cool 'look' to some of your images (don't overdo it though) that the other wedding guests or part-time snappers probably won't have. If you keep the subject placed centrally, then you can make them look fairly natural, but have these very distorted edges. Lots of fun - but again - not to be overdone.

So I may end up with a Sigma 10-20mm as my next wedding lens? And then again... I might not. :-)

Thoughts on Nikon lenses

2009-12-10T20:51:00.007+13:00

As the end of my last post would suggest, now that I have the D300 I'm thinking lenses. My primary use for anything I consider buying will, of course, be for weddings. Having concentrated most of my money on buying the D300 body and vertical grip, I've now got a basic starting kit comprising of the 'best' that I could afford. This includes the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 (cheap, but fast and sharp - a must for any camera bag IMHO) and the 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 Nikon zoom - probably Nikon's best ever 'kit' lens - reasonably fast, reasonably sharp - and great coverage for a DX sensor camera like the D300 (equivalent of 28-105mm in traditional 35mm film terms).

I am also 'borrowing' the consumer-grade 75-240mm f4.5-5.6D from my wife's D70 kit (together with the D70 itself as a backup body), and while it can produce some nice images, and gets deservedly good reviews for a plastic lens, it's not really where I want to be for my longer portrait shots of the bride and groom. Ideally I want to shoot these 'wide open' at around f2.8 - so this is probably where I need to start looking.

Next question, then, is what to look at? And with Nikon, this is where it gets tricky - especially if you're looking for the best bang for your buck.

I have already suggested that a strong contender for my next 'portrait' lens is the Nikkor 85mm f1.8. At $750NZ new, this lens meets the bang-for-the-buck criteria, as well as the large aperture for nice out-of-focus backgrounds shooting at f2.8 or below. It's solidly built, is sharp, contrasty, lightweight, and renders very neutral skin tones. It's definitely top of my list at the moment - since I'm not even considering its even faster sibling, the 85mm f1.4, at almost three times the price (about $1900NZ)!

Although I really enjoy the light weight and portability of a prime, what about a zoom for more flexible composition when working in the confines of a church? Good question - but slightly problematic as a Nikon shooter on a tight budget. The lens every wedding/portrait photographer who shoots Nikon pulls out for this scenario is the 70-200mm f2.8 VR - and I have no doubt on a cropped DX body like the D300 it's a beautiful lens. But it's also $3500NZ (and there's a newer version that's even more expensive at $4200NZ.) I just won't have that kind of money anytime soon.

And I think this is where Nikon lets the 'semi-pro' shooters down, and where Canon is ahead of them in the game. And no, this is not a 'I hate Canon/Nikon' rant, it's merely an observation because I'm needing to think about these issues at the moment. If I were still shooting Canon, I would have no less than four different 70-200mm pro grade lenses to choose from, depending on my budget. The entry level (but still amazing) 70-200mm f4L at $1350NZ, the 70-200 f4L IS at $2150NZ, the 70-200 f2.8L at $2250, or the 70-200mm f2.8L IS at $3250NZ. This is a fantastic selection that allows you to pick and choose the features you need, matched to your budget - and ALL under the asking price of the only one Nikon offers. Quite simply, in terms of Nikon's poor showing, I don't think that's good enough.

There is another Nikon alternative, and fortunately it is well worth considering in the 'newer' version - and that's the Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8 (the older version was a push-pull type zoom, whereas the newer version has a rotating zoom). It's around $2400NZ, which makes it a better prospect (and comparable with the Canon 70-200mm f2.8), and is a solid pro-series lens, although its design is a little on the tired side. It isn't silent focusing (using Nikon's older camera-based screw-driven focus system), isn't internal focusing, and doesn't use as many ED elements as the 70-200 VR lens - but it is considerably cheaper - and more importantly is probably just in my ballpark budget-wise (after I've shot a few more weddings).

When the time comes for me to upgrade the 18-70mm Nikkor zoom, the prospects with Nikon are just as grim. Yes, there is the superb 17-55mm f2.8 - BUT (wait for it) it's priced at $2800NZ! Canon also has a 17-55mm f2.8 for their cropped sensor format cameras, and at $1900NZ it's almost a full $1k cheaper. I have no doubt the Nikkor is better built (it's an absolute tank), but it had better be for almost $1000NZ more. I've owned and used the Canon 17-55mm f2.8, and it's a beautiful lens that produces stunning images. Again, for the end user, I think Canon has got it right.

It doesn't get any better when you compare apples with apples in a 24-70mm f2.8 showdown. In this instance, both are built to last under professional abuse. The Nikon is $3500NZ, and the Canon retails for $2250NZ. That's right, the Nikkor is $1250NZ MORE than the equivalent Canon. The same is true with almost every other Canon/Nikon pro-series lens comparison. Are the Nikon's in many cases actually worth twice more than Canon lenses. I think not. Are Nikon taking advantage of working pros? Maybe.

The simple fact of the matter, as a Nikon user who wants to shoot Nikkor glass, is that the prices are what they are - like it or not. The 85mm f1.8 and 80-200mm f2.8 are mighty fine lenses, comparable in price with Canon's offerings, so I guess that's where I'm heading. Replacing the 18-70mm zoom later on will be a tougher assignment... but that's a decision for another day.

Wedding 1 - Barry & Lisa

2009-12-05T15:49:00.011+13:00

Yahooo - the Wedding Season for 2009/2010 is underway, with a pretty special start to the season! On November 28th, my brother Barry married Lisa at The Old Stone House in Christchurch. Needless to say it was a special day, and I was thrilled that I could be a part of it in an 'official' capacity.

The boys got ready out at Barry & Lisa's place at Tai Tapu, about 20mins outside of Christchurch. I had told Barry that this was my first wedding with the Nikon D300, although I did have a pretty good play with it before the big day (obviously). Needless to say, the Nikon performed flawlessly. Any problems were due to human error, and fortunately there weren't too many of them either :-)

Lisa got ready at Steph's (one of her bridesmaids), which gave me the chance to use the 50mm f1.8 inside, reasonably wide open, with natural light. I've also set the D300 to shoot on 'Auto" ISO within a 100th sec shutter speed and 1600 ISO limit. This means that within these two parameters, the camera will automatically change the ISO/shutter speed combination so that it stays above 100th of a second shutter speeds (to limit camera shake) but no greater that 1600 ISO. This worked perfectly throughout the day, and saved me from those 'gotchas' where you set the camera to ISO 1600 for low inside light, and then forget to reset it to ISO 200 when you go outside. Cool.

Most of the time I was using the Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5/4.5 zoom, and I remain impressed with this general 'kit' lens, even on the higher resolving sensor of the D300. Shooting in RAW, the images straight from the camera are a little 'soft', but a basic overall sharpening in Photoshop and the photos snap into crisp, sharp, clarity. This image of Lisa arriving at the wedding is one of my favourites from the day.

It's not usually the case that I'm also required to be 'in' the wedding photos, but this was my brother's wedding afterall, so there's me on the extreme right, next to my wife Joanna, and our two kids, Joshua and Emily. My Mum and Stepfather are next, then Barry and Lisa with Barry's daughter Libby, and finally Lisa's Mum & Dad on the left. Again, with its 28mm (equivalent) wide angle capability, the 18-70mm lens was ideal for these large group shots. I even managed to get up high and cover an overall group shot of the 80 or so guests who attended the service.

One of the reasons I choose to go back to Nikon with my wedding kit was so that (early on at least) I could 'use' my wife's Nikon D70 and lenses as a back up to the D300 on the day. This image was taken with her 'cheap' 75-240mm f4.5-5.6 Nikon zoom, which, although it might be cheap, can also take some pretty sharp images wide open. And you still get nice background blur as long as you get plenty of separation between your subject and background.

We had great locations within a stones-throw from each other (literally), and they were a lot of fun to photograph. It made my first wedding using the D300 a breeze, even though I did fumble occasionally with the command dials. Overall, though, I'm very happy with the day, with the images, and with the Nikon D300. I'm sure I'll play around with lens combinations eventually - I would prefer all the lenses to be constant 2.8's - but that will have to wait a while.

Just as I had hoped it would, the Nikon D300 passed the wedding test with flying colours. The battery grip allows me to shoot with two batteries, easily handling an all-day shoot (I probably could have covered it with just one battery), and adds a nice heft and portrait shooting support to the camera. The lens combination worked very well, and I continue to be impressed with the versatility and sharpness of the 17-80mm Nikkor. The 50mm f1.8 should be a given in any photographers bag, while the cheap and cheerful 75-240mm is good enough to shoot hand-held wide open in good light to produce crisp, tight portraits.

Having said that, I'm pretty sure my next lens purchase will be a Nikkor 85mm f1.8 for tight portrait shots on a wedding. I loved that lens on my Canon, and am looking forward to using Nikon's version on my D300. Can't wait...

New Season, New Kit

2009-11-12T21:55:00.008+13:00

It was only 8 months ago that I wrote about getting my 'new' Canon 400D kit from New Zealand's online auction site - Trademe. A lot can happen in 8 months, and during that time technology has not been my friend.

First, my iMac developed a problem with its firewire port so that my external backup drive stopped working. My local Mac technician had a look, but in the end decided it really needed to go back for repairs (fortunately under warranty). Unfortunately, it had to go to Auckland, and to cut a long story short, it was there for a good couple of months!

Then, if that wasn't bad enough, my Canon 5D stopped working - the viewfinder information and top lcd readouts simply disappeared. It will still take an image, but you can't see any of the settings to know what the camera is shooting in! And unlike my iMac, the Canon 5D is out of warranty. With only a couple of months before the new wedding season, this couldn't have happened at a worse time - and I've gotta say I'm not impressed.

Not long after owning the 5D kit combo with the 24-105mm f4L the lens developed a problem with the zooming mechanism. It became so stiff it would hardly move. And now the 5D has gone down as well. It hasn't exactly had a hard life - I'm very particular with my gear - so both items having major problems concerns me greatly.

So much so that, with the new wedding season looming, and a reasonably full season booked, I've decided to drop Canon like a hot potato and make the switch 'back' to Nikon. I've sold my 400D, flash and lenses - and have 'upgraded' to the Nikon D300.

This is it, as sold to me yesterday (again on Trademe). It's only done around 6000 images, so it hasn't even warmed up yet - it's been a photographers back-up studio camera, so it's had very little use. It's Nikon's top-of-the-tree DX format (cropped sensor) body - 12.3MP with a 51 area autofocus system, live view, excellent low-noise response up to 1600 ISO, 8 frames per second shooting with the vertical grip attached (6 frames per second without it), not to mention an amazingly high resolution 3 inch LCD screen - with almost 3 times more dots that you're average screen. Wowser!

Even before I got the body, I bought a 50mm f1.8 (basically brand new) that on the D300 will become a 75mm f1.8 portrait lens for my wedding work. The sensor size on the D300 adds x1.5 to the focal length of the lens, so the 50mm become a 75mm. Nice.

But of course that won't be enough to shoot a wedding with, so I have also just snapped up (excuse the pun) a Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5-4.5. This was a tougher decision, as my budget was pretty much blown on the D300. I had intended to get a D90 - about $1000NZ cheaper than the D300, but since I was changing to Nikon to get a more reliable kit, I figured in the end I needed to go with a more 'professional' grade body. So contrary to what I always maintain when buying a system, more money was spent on a body - leaving me not much for a lens. Which is not to say I didn't get a decent lens with the 18-70mm, because it is a decent performer. One of Nikon's better 'consumer grade' lenses. But it ain't no 17-55mm f2.8 either! (Nor should you expect it to be at around $2000NZ cheaper). I have used the 18-70mm lens before, since it was the kit lens with my first digital camera, the D70. It's a very good performer for the price, has quick and quiet silent-wave autofocus, and is sharp - and reasonably fast for a kit lens. My Canon 24-105mm f4 is only just faster as a constant f4, and this was my main wedding lens last season.

An SB600 speedlite rounds of my 'new' kit (again off of Trademe), and although I shoot mostly in natural light and prefer to boost the ISO before using flash, it will come in handy for the 'cutting of the cake' type inside shots. If I can get my head around Nikon's wireless flash system (where you can use the small on-board flash head on the D300 as a 'commander' unit to trigger the SB600 off-camera), then I may end up using the SB600 more than I think?

All the gear should be arriving in the next few days (the 50mm f1.8 is already here), and then I'll have a week to get to grips with it before I shoot my brothers wedding! No pressure :-)

I'll obviously have more to say about the Nikon D300 on this blog in the future - but for now I'm very excited about the new gear, and the new season. Will post initial impressions after the gear has arrived and I've taken it all for a spin.

I've still got the Canon 5D body (I haven't finished paying for it yet) and 24-105mm f4, so once I get the body fixed I may even end up shooting with two different systems on the same wedding (if I can work that way?). Or I may even alternate? We'll have to wait and see. But it will be Nikon all the way for the first few, until I get the money together to fix the 5D. No matter how you look at it, it should be a good wedding season. I'm certainly looking forward to it.

200mm f2.8L Canon Prime

2009-06-09T22:15:00.004+12:00

In choosing the 400mm f5.6L prime lens for Nicki (see previous post), I had to give her some strong reasons as to why she should consider a prime lens over a zoom.

Most photographers starting out have a zoom lens that comes with the camera, and they never consider anything else. If they ever look at getting another lens with a different focal length, they almost always look for another zoom. Why would you only want a single focal length when you can cover a wider area with a zoom?

Well, probably the most compelling (and damning) reason - and the one that should really be paramount with most photographers, is image quality. Prime lenses are sharper, quicker, brighter (in most cases), and optically better than almost all zooms - period.

Zoom lenses, by their very nature and design, require much more complex lens arrangements, which allows for more image quality compromises. Primes, on the other hand, can function more quickly due to less moving parts, and a simplified lens construction. This also means there's a greater chance of the engineers getting it right.

So Nicki was sold and went with the 400mm f5.6L super zoom for her bird photography. I am also sold on primes - and already own two; a 50mm f1.8 (cheap, lightweight and plastic, but what a sharp lens), and an 85mm f1.8 - my favorite portrait lens when shooting weddings.

Since selling my 70-200mm f4L lens last year, I wanted something to give me some more reach beyond the 24-105mm f4L which is my 'main' wedding lens (yes, it is a zoom...). I only really used the 200mm end of the 70-200mm, which is why I parted with it in the first place. So after waxing lyrical to Nicki about primes, and doing quite a bit of research on the net about them, the 200mm f2.8L caught my eye. I hunted one down second-hand at a camera retailer, and am now the proud owner of a Canon EF Mark 1 200mm f2.8L.

I'd read some really positive reviews about this lens before getting it - and let me tell you - every word of it is true! What a great lens! The above photo of my son, Joshua, was taken the day I got the lens. It was a pretty overcast and dull day, but even so the image has some pop to it. Wide open at f2.8 this lens is stunning, and creates beautifully creamy out-of-focus background blur. The front eye (what the focus was set on) is incredibly sharp - even blown up over 100%. Many users claim that it gets even sharper at f4 and above - and if that's true (which I have no doubt it is) then this lens will be sharp enough to cut glass!

It's a reasonably solid, metal and glass construction lens, while still being light-weight enough to have on the camera and carry around for long periods comfortably. It does have a space for a tripod fitting, although it doesn't come with one (shame on you Canon - this is an 'L' lens after all). The focus is fast and silent, and the front element doesn't rotate, allowing for easy use of polarising filters. My version (Mark I) comes with an in-built lens hood which simply extends out over the front. It's not a very deep lens hood, and as such has been 'fixed' in the Mark II version by the use of a separate (and much deeper) snap-on lens hood. Even so, my built in one should be adequate enough.

Using primes becomes a bit of a drug once you see the results they bring to your images. Once you get you first one, you have to get more. Even if it seems impractical when they overlap with zoom lenses you may already own. Use a prime lens, print the results, and you'll be hooked. Don't say I didn't warn you.

The 'ideal' birding kit?

2009-06-07T15:36:00.003+12:00

Over the last week I have been helping a friend spend some serious (for her) money on a 'birding/wildlife' kit.

With the unfortunate passing of a close relative, came the fortunate inheriting of some money that was unexpected. So she decided to splash out on herself and get 'seriously' into her passion for shooting birds.

Now bird photography ain't my thing - largely because it's so darn hard! You have to have stealth, patience, and an almost uncanny understanding of your subject to get halfway decent images - none of which I possess. I've tried, and failed, to get any decent bird images, until finally I've come to the understanding that it just isn't me.

So when she (Nicki is her name and I don't think she'd mind me saying it) - so when Nicki asked me to advise her on a birding kit, I had some serious research to do.

From her own experiences with bird photography, she knew she was heading into 'super-telephoto' territory to help get her close enough to the 'action', while still maintaining good distance so as not to alarm her subjects. Trouble is, 'super telephoto' lenses are horrendously expensive - and her budget wasn't 'that' big.

Naturally, then, Nicki was considering a Tamron 200-500mm f4.5/6.3 (or something like that - I forget 'exactly'), pointed in this direction by a well-meaning sales person at a camera store she had called. These lenses (Sigma does one as well) by the 'third party' lens manufacturers, seem to offer the best of both worlds - a rather impressive zoom range, reasonably low price, and relatively light weight (from all that plastic).

Trouble is (and maybe it's just me) I've never really been impressed by any third-party lens I've ever used/owned, over an equivalent lens made by the camera manufacturers (i.e. Canon/Nikon/Olympus/Sony/Pentax etc). In Nicki's case it happened to be Canon, as she already owns a 450D with standard kit lens and 70-300mm f4.5/5.6 that she had been using for her bird photography previously (and highly successfully I might add).

My advice to her (he said, cutting to the chase), was to go for a Canon lens - and within her budget there was really only one choice that kept coming up time and again on internet reviews - the 400mm f5.6 L. Many call it the ideal 'bird in flight' lens, because it's the start of the super-telephoto range, is 'relatively' light and so can be hand-held in good lighting, is super fast to autofocus, and it's also super sharp - all the ingredients you want in a lens.

So that's what I advised her to get - and that's what she got. Together with a new Canon 50D for increased ISO use, faster and more reliable autofocusing, a more rugged chassis, and more megapixels (15+) so she can crop in more seriously on the final image. The 50D also gives her an extra x1.6 cropping factor on the lens as well, giving her an equivalent 640mm f5.6 lens! pretty cool.

Is she happy with her new kit. Well, by all accounts she is. I haven't seen her since she got it - I guess she's been too busy out taking photos. So yeah - I'd say she's on to a winner.

EF-S 18-55mm IS lens test

2009-04-02T13:49:00.006+13:00

When I was looking at getting a lighter travel kit I 'ummed' and 'arred' for quite a while about the lenses I should go with. The body was relatively straight forward - the Canon Digital Rebel series fits the bill nicely (and I continue to be impressed by the XTi/400D). But given that I already had a 17-40mm f4'L' and a 24-105mm f4'L', why wouldn't I just stick with them?

As a general, walk-around lens, I didn't think the 17-40mm would give me 'quite' enough reach for everyday use. And as much as I love the 24-105mm on my 5D for wedding work, it's not a light lens, which kinda defeats the purpose of a 'lighter' travel kit. Anyway, to cut a long story short (although this is going to be a long story anyway), I read some very good things about the 18-55mm IS and the 55-250mm IS - both very light (and very cheap) image stabilized lenses that I thought would fit the 'travel' bill nicely.

Of course, now that I've got all four lenses, my curiosity has got the better of me. I do want a lighter travel kit, but I also don't want to sacrifice too much in the way of image quality. After all, why bother lugging any camera gear around with you if you're only going to be disappointed with the end results!

So, armed with the EF-S 18-55mm IS and the 17-40mm f4'L', I decided a lens shoot-out was in order. I was prepared to take the results as they came, and make my decision about which lens to use based on the cold hard facts. Would the 'kit' 18-55mm lens prove as good as many claimed, or would my $1000NZ more expensive 'L' lens kick sand in its puny little face?

First, let me give a quick rundown on how I performed this 'less-than-scientific' test. I didn't shoot lens charts, resolution charts, or colour charts to determine which lens was 'best'. Instead, I took them both outside and did what was important to me - I actually took some real photos with them. I found a subject that wasn't going anywhere in a hurry, wouldn't exhibit any shake from the wind etc, and set up my tripod. I switched the 400D to remote release and for all the images taken I used the RC-1 infrared shutter release so I wasn't physically touching the camera when the image was taken. I didn't use mirror lock up because a: I never do, and b: I think it's overkill. Above is the scene as taken for my first series of test. Both lenses were set to 18mm.

It may be difficult to tell much from a low-res image on a computer screen (click on the image for a larger view), but if you're thinking "gee, there's not much in it" then you'd be right! I've looked at all of them at 100% on my screen (obviously), so let me tell you what I can see (and you'll just have to take my word for it).

On the edges, the 17-40mm is sharper than the 18-55mm, and exhibits a touch more detail at both f4 and f8 - just. At f11 and beyond the 18-55mm sharpens up to be practically identical. There isn't a hugh difference to be honest, and the 18-55mm equips itself very well against its $1000+ more expensive 'L' cousin.

The identical conclusions can be drawn from the central part of the image with both lenses at 18mm. Again, the 17-40mm is sharper up to f11, and then both are identical. Saying the 17-40mm is sharper up to f11 makes it sound as if the 18-55mm is crap - but it's only 'just' sharper. And these results are unedited jpegs straight from the camera. Nothing has been applied in photoshop.

As a quick test, I did apply some sharpening to the 18-55mm files (150% with 0.5 radius) and then compared them with the unedited 17-40mm files. Basically identical. I gotta say - I'm impressed.

I then zoomed both lenses to 40mm and took another series at all apertures. For the sake of sounding like a cracked record, the results were the same. There's no doubt that the 17-40mm has a tiny edge over the 18-55mm at apertures below f11 - but it's a tiny edge indeed. Amazing for a lens that cost literally a fraction of the price!

Of course both lenses are not created equal. The 18-55mm IS is a plastic fantastic with lightweight materials and a plastic lens mount - no depth of field scale, and difficult manual focus. The focus motor, whilst reasonably snappy, is audible - the front lens rotates, and it only has 1 aspherical element in its lens construction (although to be fair it does a very good job of controlling aberration). What it does have over the 17-40mm f4'L', of course, is the IS function.

The 17-40mm, on the other hand, is a solid, well constructed lens with silky smooth manual focus, full-time-focus override, a non-rotating front element, weather sealing, 2UD and 3 Aspherical lens elements, a silent USM motor, with a metal lens mount and distance indicator window. To look, touch and use the two lens is like comparing apples with oranges - or chalk with cheese.

Of course this also goes a long way to the $1000NZ price difference between the two lenses. But is that enough? Because when we look at the actual images taken with both lenses, the $1000 difference become less obvious. You are certainly not getting a thousand dollar image difference between the two lenses. Fortunately, I think that's a good thing.

The EF-S 18-55mm f3.5/5.6 IS is an incredibly solid performer - image wise - for the price. It's an obviously mass-produced, low-end 'kit' lens that is all but thrown in with a new Canon digital SLR, it's lightweight, and won't stand up to a lot of abuse. BUT - the images you can get with it are on a par with images taken with the much much more expensive 'L' series Canon lenses. A quick sharpen and slight curves adjustment in photoshop and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

That makes the 18-55mm IS amazing value for money in my book. Too many photographers are told that their kit lens is 'crap' and to get rid of it asap. If your kit lens happens to be the Canon EF-S 18-55mm 3.5/5.6 IS lens, then you might just want to hang on to it for a bit longer.

Gina & Kerry's Wedding

2009-03-30T15:32:00.007+13:00

My run of bad weather continued with Gina & Kerry's Wedding, although to be fair we did manage to stay outside for most of the day (and it was a garden wedding after all).

I was very excited about shooting this wedding, as the venue was an old chapel with beautiful gardens that had been converted into a B&B. Gina and Kerry found it on the internet and asked if they could have their wedding service there. It was the first wedding to be held on the grounds for over 90 years!

The location offered dozens of cool and quirky locations. Gina fell in love with this door and also wanted to make sure that the window at top left was included in the shot. Thankfully my 17-40mm f4L on the full-frame 5D let me get everything in, as well as giving quite a dramatic wide-angle feel to the image.

We played around there for quite a while, as we were really spoilt for choice with cool locations around the garden. It also helped that Gina & Kerry (and the rest of the bridal party) were so relaxed and fun to shoot. We could have spent all afternoon there (well I could of anyway), but they also wanted some photos taken at the beach, and then at the stables by the racecourse where they had the reception. I hope I get a chance to shoot another wedding at Chapel Hill next season (weather permitting of course)!

Down at the beach we played with the dramatic colour contrast of Gina & Kerry against their (very cool) 'electric purple' wedding car. I used a wide-angle again to really accentuate the curves of the car extending out into the frame, and gave the final image a high contrast HDR (High Dynamic Range) type of treatment.

I've recently discovered 'actions' in photoshop, where you can get lots of different looks with the click of a button (if you download the appropriate photoshop 'action'). What a huge time-saver when putting an album together and there are some very cool actions out there (as well as some pretty naff ones). Of course you can create your own actions as well. It's pretty easy. Just google 'making photoshop actions' and I'm sure you'll find an explanation of how it's done.

Another dodgy day in terms of the weather, but another great day in terms of the couple (they were fantastic) and the images we got together. Thanks Gina & Kerry. I'll have your album proof to you soon - promise :-)

First photos with Rebel XTi

2009-03-17T20:41:00.004+13:00

Took the 'new' camera out last night to one of my favorite locations to 'test' it out. For an entry level camera it handles very nicely - especially at night - since the large lcd screen on the back does double duty as the information screen as well. There are also a few nice little touches, such as a count-down for the self-timer and the cut-out sensors when you bring your eye up to the viewfinder. Overall I was very impressed.

The vertical grip creaks and groans a bit, especially given my usual 5D experience, but the battery power seems consistent and I don't think it's likely to break anytime soon. The fit with the camera seems ok, and it certainly handles better with it attached.

The lenses autofocus quickly and reasonably quietly, although I didn't really get a chance to push them to the limits given I was shooting landscapes. Sharpness appears to be acceptable from the results so far, but I will do more tests against my 17-40 f4L soon. That will be a real test.

So far so good. I enjoyed using the camera very much, and it has an excellent user interface. Kinda wish some of the features were on the 5D as well. I can tell I'm going to enjoy using it, and will hopefully use it a lot more soon. More thoughts and pictures when I do.

400D Arrived

2009-03-16T16:15:00.005+13:00

Well it turned up today - my XTi, together with a vertical grip and 18-55mm kits lens. I've already changed it for the EF-S 18-55mm IS lens, but will keep the standard lens for possible re-sale.

First impressions are positive - it's a very clean unit - looks almost brand new. Other first impressions? It is very small and light - so I'm very glad I got the grip to go with it. Makes a huge difference to the way it handles (to me at least), and certainly remains light and responsive. Focus response with the EF-S lenses seems quick and precise and the large lcd display on the back makes changing camera settings very quick.

Have also found the 'perfect' bag for my new travel kit - a Lowepro EX 180. As you can see in the photo, it's big enough to hold the 400D with grip attached, plus the 18-55 standard lens, as well as the 55-250mm EF-S, a Canon 50mm f1.8, a 430EX Speedlite, plus cards, blower brush, manual and other small assorted accessories. Quite a bit really. With all that packed in, it's still a very light load.

I plan on getting out tonight to take some landscapes with the whole kit, which will give me a better feel for the camera, and the load. Although I can already tell that there's no comparison between this and the whole 5D kit I carry around in a backpack. Their may be no weight comparison to be made, but I'm hoping there's an image comparison. It might not be full-frame, or a 5D, but from what I've read I'm looking forward to viewing some of the images made from the 10MP sensor of the Rebel XTi. Will post some soon. I might even get around to a camera/lens/ISo comparison between the two kits. That might be 'very' interesting.

Denise & Ashley

2009-03-15T10:51:00.005+13:00

Denise & Ashley were my first wedding couple for 2009 - married on January 17th at Holy Trinity Anglican Church here in Greymouth. Denise is a local girl, so came 'home' to get married, even though both of them are based overseas (they both work for an international airline).

The day wasn't the best weather-wise and unfortunately this was to be a reoccurring theme throughout this wedding season. It rained for most of the day, although it did manage to clear enough so that we could get outside with the wedding party and take some photos.

Even though the weather wasn't really on our side, it didn't dampen Denise and Ashley's spirits. They were (are) a lovely couple to work with, and made the day a relaxing, pleasurable and fun experience for all involved.

The wedding reception was out at Shantytown - a replica gold-rush township that showcases early New Zealand history. This is a perfect venue to get some great 'old world' type images for an album, and is also the best place to shoot if its raining because it has a lot of cover that still allows for interesting views. It is a very popular wedding destination here on the Coast, and rightfully so.

Nicky (my assistant) and I had a heap of fun on this wedding and it was a great way to start 2009 - even if the weather had other ideas.

A few days after the wedding, Denise and Ahsley got in touch with me and asked if I would mind taking some more photos, this time at the beach. Denise had grown up at the Cobden Beach, and was disappointed that her wedding images didn't reflect that (since it was too wet to get out there on the day).

Of course I was up for it, and so after work we met down at the Beach and had a great evening shooting images that will 'round out' their album. It's the first time I have shot more photos a few days later, and although not taken on the 'same day' as the wedding, I think they still fit into the theme of their wedding day, and will make a great inclusion to their album. It is, after all, about producing something that the client is happy with and that brings back the memories of that time in their lives - be it one day, or several.

So 'thanks' Denise and Ashley. Your wedding was amazing, I enjoyed every minute of it, and the album is going to be fantastic! What a great way to start my 2009 wedding season.

Canon 400D arriving soon.

2009-03-12T15:52:00.006+13:00

Another year gone, another month along - another camera on the horizon. Am I a camera junkie? Maybe...

Out goes the EOS 1D, and in comes the 400D. Yep, that's right - from the sublime to the ridiculous. I've sold my top-of-the-line 1D and decided to change it with a (you could argue) bottom-of-the-line consumer-grade Canon Rebel. Am I insane!?

Now before I answer that, I will hasten to add that their IS method to my madness. In fact there's several methods (reasons) to my madness - although that probably still makes it madness!?

I fell into something of a routine towards the end of the last wedding season - I used my 5D full-frame pretty much exclusively. Sure, I had the 1D with me, but I never really got it out of the bag. Fair enough, you say, it's your back-up camera after all - isn't it? Well yes, it is, but after lugging my camera bag around for a whole season, I've got to say it's an incredibly heavy back-up. And what's more, I don't find myself all that keen to lug it over my shoulder and go for an afternoon stroll with it either! I could see a pattern emerging, and in as much as it was my 'dream' camera, I could see that I just wasn't ever going to use it unless I 'made' myself use it.

At the end of my last wedding, having just lugged my backpack full of gear around for several hours and almost getting a hernia, I made a vow that during the off season I would 'down-size' and lighten my load. So the decision to sell the 1D was, in the end, relatively easy - if not still somewhat sad.

My decision to sell the 70-200mm f4'L' (gasp, shock, horror) was less easy, but still the right one based on this years shooting experience. For a 70-200mm it isn't particularly heavy, but it does take up quite a bit of space - and heavy is relative when you look at other options. So out it goes as well. But what to replace them with?

To cut a long story short - I've settled on the 400D (Rebel XTi for our American friends). In fact, the camera that I have purchased (on trademe) is from America, and so will have 'Rebel XTi' on the front and not the 400D label as seen above. I am getting it with the vertical grip (I'm not 'that' crazy), as well as the slightly upgraded 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 Image Stabilized kit lens. That should lighten the load plenty!

And from reviews I've read, the image you get from the 10MP Canon CMOS sensor in these is very clear and noise free(ish) up to its maximum ISO1600. Not to mention the same 9 point focus system found on the 40D.

And the 70-200mm f4'L'? Well I've 'replaced' that with an EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 Image Stabilized Canon lens which has also been getting very good reviews. I appreciate it won't be the same as the 70-200 - but I don't intend using it for weddings. I've got an 85mm f1.8 Canon prime lens that I've been using for my close-up wedding portraits with the 5D, and I absolutely LOVE it. So the 55-250mm EF-S will become my 'travel' option, paired with the 400D (XTi) and 18-55mm.

So now I will basically have two kits; my 'pro' wedding kit with the 5D and some 'L' and prime lenses, and my travel kit (backup) with the lighter EF-S lenses that will cover me from 28 to 400mm! All together my travel kit probably weighs less than the 1D body by itself! Now I'm actually looking forward to going out and taking my camera with me. My back, and my hernia, both thank me...

Random Image

2009-01-27T11:36:00.005+13:00

I hadn't been out to shoot landscapes for a while (been too busy processing weddings), so my mate Stewart and I decided to head down to our local beach last evening and shoot some landscapes.

This is one of the images I took using the 1D and a 17-40mm f4L. It was shot hand-held, simply because I had left the contact plate for my tripod at home, so couldn't connect the 1D to my tripod.

As the light was getting low, I was forced to look up into the sky to get more light for hand-holding - and noticed this cloud formation. I don't normally look up into the sky for my landscapes, other than as a component for the overall picture. I use sky as an element in the composition, but hardly ever as the main subject itself.

Maybe that's why I like this image so much. It's a departure for me, a different way of looking and thinking about my images, and if I had been able to use my tripod, it is probably a photo I would never have taken. It might not be an photo that will win me too many awards - if any - but it's a bit of a lightbulb moment.

Hopefully now I will 'look up' more often.

A Journey into Infra Red

2009-01-26T15:38:00.004+13:00

It's interesting to see where things might lead if you keep an open mind.

I have (or should that be 'had') no interest in Infra Red photography whatsoever. Sure, it was the kind of technique I thought I might 'give a go' one day - I even bought a roll of infra red Kodak film back in the good old days - and I've probably still got it somewhere? From the little I had read about it infra red photography seemed like, well, too much hard work.

But that, of course, was before digital. Not that I had any burning desire to play with infra red techniques with digital either. Until I saw a camera come up on Trademe.

Infra red in the past, even with digital, meant using special (read expensive) filters, long shutter speeds, guesswork in terms of exposure and focusing (manually because the infra-red colour spectrum is on a different 'length' than normal) - and lots of trial and error. See - too much hard work.

BUT - as with most things technical, some clever-clogs had the idea of pulling apart their perfectly good digital SLR, removing the infra red filter that blocks out IR from the sensor, and replacing it with a filter that will actually capture the IR wavelengths. And viola - a digital camera that 'sees' in infra red.

Above is an image I took last weekend with my 'new' infra red Canon 300D - a digital camera set up to capture IR images. It's a breeze to use - having been calibrated to focus in the IR spectrum (although it still pays to use fairly small apertures of around f8). On a bright, sunny day (great for infra red) you can hand-hold all day with shutter speeds of 125th - 250th. This is unheard of with 'traditional' IR using filters.

I was initially excited about the cameras Wedding applications - skin gets an eerie glow to it - almost ghost-like, together with the white of foliage, will make stunning photos here on the 'green' West Coast. But the more I looked into what others were doing with 'digital' IR, the more excited I got about it for my landscapes.

Getting your 'old' digital SLR converted to IR is trendy at the moment - some are even converting their (gasp) 5Ds to Infra red! Boy, you gotta love the results to do that. Once converted, the camera will ONLY take IR images - unless (and until) you convert it back. This is fairly major surgery, and something best left to the professionals. There are a handful of technicians willing to do the conversion, as well as some company's offering it now as well. I would strongly suggest you use them, rather than attempt the conversion yourself - although their are sites on the web that will take you through it step-by-step if you have a deathwish for your camera (or more money that I have to throw around).

I gotta say, it's pretty addictive - and I think I'm hooked. But I'm not 'quite' happy with the 300D I got from Trademe. Turns out that there are different 'grades' of filters you can use, to get different effects, and my camera just happens to use a very strong grade of filter so that I can only achieve the Black & White IR look. Other, less strong filters, will allow more colour to pass through as well - and this is called 'false colour' infra red. The effects of which can be simply stunning!

I have a 10D kicking around doing nothing now that I use the 1D and 5D at weddings. Maybe the 10D will find its way to a technician who will convert it into 'false colour' IR for me? I'd say that's more than likely...

Happy 2009

2009-01-07T13:46:00.004+13:00

Happy 2009 to all. I know it's a week late - but I've only just picked myself up from a lousy start to the new year (had a nasty tummy bug).

Consequently, I haven't been out much lately, but I did manage to get this image (above) last night. Quite a bit of post photo-shop work went on to get the final image - surprisingly (not) the sky wasn't that colour at all.

I'm gearing up for a model shoot this weekend - shooting bridal gown images for a local woman who is starting a business selling imported wedding dresses. Several locations, 7 models, and lots of dresses! I'm really looking forward to it. Will post some images and relate the experience on the blog when the dust settles and the images are processed.

Until then...

EOS 1D - Very quick first impressions

2008-11-30T09:31:00.004+13:00

It arrived a few days ago, so I haven't really had time to shoot with it (other that to 'set it up' for my shooting style and fire a couple of quick tests to see that it is all working as it should). Luckily - but hopefully not surprisingly - it is (working as it should).

First impressions are one of solidity - of course this is a very solid 1.4kg+ camera. And it feels it in the hand. But then again, not intimidatingly so. It's heavy, without being oppressive. It's definitely a Canon EOS, and therefore very easy to find your way around if you have come from that stable with any previous EOS camera (like the film 1 series or the 5D etc). What did throw me slightly, however, and something that took me about 5 minutes to get my head around, was the way the menu system works.

With other Canon digitals I have used, you press the menu button, choose a category with the fly wheel, and press 'SET' to enter it into the camera. It's a two step process, but it works well and is fairly intuitive. With the EOS 1D, you press the menu button and use the fly wheel to get to the correct sub menu, then you hold the 'SELECT' button down while using the fly wheel to highlight your choice in green, and then when you let go of the SELECT button your choice is set. This makes it a three step process, but it does mean that nothing can get changed 'accidentally' and this is presumably why the 'professional' cameras are controlled in this way?

I don't like it - or hate it. It's just different. It does mean I have to 'remember' a different way for each camera (the 1D and 5D), but largely they will both be set up to go anyway. As I said, it took me all of 5 minutes to figure it out (no, I didn't read the manual beforehand), and I suppose the more I use it, the more 'used to it' I will become.

This is a shot I took of my daughter - one of the first from the camera. Shot with a 50mm f1.8 (at f2.8) with late evening light coming through our kitchen window. Even though it's 'only' 4 megapixels, I reckon this would make a very sharp 11x16" print - so I'm more than happy with it for wedding work.

A couple of other things to mention with the 1D - first: it's NOT full-frame, so you need to multiply the lens focal length by x1.3 (which makes my 50mm f1.8 prime lens a 65mm f1.8 on the 1D), and second: it only takes CF cards up to 2Gig. With a 2Gig card and the camera set to RAW only, I can get about 400 photos. Not great, but probably OK considering I have heaps of cards for the 5D.

Anyway, that's first impressions. I'll shoot with it some more in the next few weeks, and confirm or deny what I've already written thus far. I'm off to take some photos.

EOS 1D - I weakened...

2008-11-22T16:35:00.004+13:00

So I've got this EOS 1N film camera, right. And it's a back-up for my wedding kit if the 5D and 10D fail, right. Only I didn't take it with me to the last wedding I shot - did I. I used the 5D and 10D instead. Only the 10D annoyed me because it was so slow at reviewing after the shot has been taken. It bugged me. I wished it was my 1N. Except I wished the 1N was digital and not film. See where this is going...?

You know where it's going. Although this time, rather than go looking for one, I had a 1D offered to me by a guy who replied to an unrelated auction (for some CDs) I was running on Trademe (NZs equivalent of Ebay). He 'made me an offer I couldn't refuse' and so, to cut a long story short, my 1D should be arriving early next week.

If you can see a pattern emerging here, then you're right. Since starting this blog I've gone through a 30D, Pentax 645, Canon EOS 1N, 10D and now the EOS 1D. All in about the space of a year. What does this say about me? Well, the cynical might say that I can't make up my mind and go through cameras like some hollywood actresses go through husbands. Mmmm... Maybe.

The more astute amongst you, however, might think that I've embarked upon a great search to get together 'my' ultimate kit and, as the saying goes, you have to break a few eggs if you want to make an omelet.

Am I there yet...? Probably not. I'm there with the 5D, for certain. It has everything I want in my main wedding body, and nothing I don't. The new 5D Mark II doesn't interest me in the slightest. Sensor cleaning would be nice, but other than that I don't want (or need) more megapixels, I certainly don't want HD video, and I certainly don't need Live View on my Digital SLR's.

Will I be there with the 1D then? Maybe. It'll be fast enough, of that I have no doubt. And it will certainly be rugged enough. It's 'only' 4.5 megapixels, but that should be enough for wedding albums and prints up to 11x16 (and probably slightly beyond) considering I do most of my cropping 'in camera'.

One of the camera's most compelling reviews for me was one written by Dennis Reggie, one of the greatest Wedding Photographers on the planet, and the 'father' of the modern photojournalism style we are all shooting in. He was given a pre-release 1D back in 2001 and spoke glowingly of the camera, using it in 4 weddings before having to hand it back to Canon. Not long after he bought three for himself! If it's good enough for Dennis, it's good enough for me.

Now granted, that was 6 years ago (such a long time in digital camera history), and Canon have gone on to 'better' the 1D with a Mark II and Mark III version. Faster processing, bigger buffers, more megapixels, full frame, live view, sensor cleaning... the 'upgrade' list goes on. But as an 'entry' into Canon's professional digital EOS 1 series, I'm willing to bet that the 1D is still a kick-ass camera.

I will give another report once the camera has arrived and I've had a chance to 'play' with it a bit. One things for certain though, it will be a heavy beast - a real shoulder cruncher. I'd better go and find those dumbells and start working up the old arm muscles then.

Leisha & Ross 01/11/08

2008-11-08T09:10:00.006+13:00

Shot my first wedding for the season last weekend and surprise, surprise, it didn't rain - it poured! I haven't done a wedding for a couple of seasons, and this was my first out on my own, so my worst fears were realised when I awoke Saturday morning to torrential rain, with no sign of a let-up. Bummer!

The original plan was an outside wedding (yeah right) on a cliff overlooking the beautiful coastline, with bridal party shots on the beach. So with that out of the way, it was on to 'Plan B'.

Unfortunately plan B meant shooting everything inside, mainly with on-camera flash (which I don't 'love' as a rule), in cramped little spaces. And this is with a wedding party of 12!

The image above of Leisha (the gorgeous bride), taken while she was getting ready, was shot with the Canon 10D and 50mm f1.8 (taken at f2.8). It was shot looking down a tiny hallway, with Leisha placed in the middle, looking up into one of those small tungsten recessed lights that are popular in modern households now. The light is warm, contrasty and harsh - and has been softened slightly with a soft-focus blur applied later on in Photoshop. It's an example of an image I would never have taken if it had been an outside wedding on a sunny day, but it's also an example of an image that I pre-visualised and took knowing that I could make something out of it later on.

Despite the mornings torrent of rain, it did actually clear for the afternoon (thank goodness), so we were able to go out and take the bridal party photos outside. The lighting was very flat, and it was cold and windy, but at least it was outside - and not raining! Leisha and Ross were great about it though, and were naturals in front of the camera. This shot of them together was taken on my Canon 5D with the 70-200mm f4 'L' lens on f4.

I'd never shot a wedding party of 12 before, and it was as challenging as it sounds! No sooner would you get one couple placed where you wanted, you would turn around to place another couple only to find that the first couple had then moved! It was an exercise in diplomacy and patience, in very cold, windy and trying conditions - but fortunately I managed to pull it off enough times that I think Leisha and Ross will be happy with the final results. The Bridal party image above was taken using the 5D with 17-40mm f4 'L' lens on f5.6. The sky has been 'burnt in' later in photoshop, with a slight vignette added to draw attention to the group.

The pancake rocks at Punakaiki were a great place to take wedding photos, especially with such a large bridal party. Next time though, I'd like it to be slightly warmer, with no wind, or rain (hey, I don't want much).

All in all it was a very stressful, yet very successful day. I'm happy with what I produced for my clients under the circumstances, and I think they will be too?