Fuji S6500FD digicam

My fun with the Canon 5D continues, and I am still enjoying full-frame digital photography and all that it entails.

I've slowly figured out how to set up the 5D for my shooting style, and now I just have to get off my butt and get out there a bit more. Took a 2.5 hr drive to Okarito last week to catch the sunset, but it was pretty disappointing. I think it's more of a sunrise destination so I'll have to try again soon.


Of more note recently is my new digicam purchase. A friend came for advice on his next digicam upgrade, so that got me looking (and drooling) at all the new models.

I've had a Canon A710 IS point & shoot compact for 'snap shots' for a couple of years now, but to be honest I very rarely used it. Image quality was ok, but the slim, compact style digitals just really aren't me. I much prefer a truer SLR style experience, and have always liked the look of the Fuji line of 'bridge' cameras (not quite SLR, not quite point-and-shoot).

I decided to sell my Canon compact, giving me enough money to get myself a Fuji Finepix S6500FD (called the S6000FD in America). It's a 6.3MP camera, but with the use of Fuji's 'Super CCD' technology most reviewers believe it performs more like a 10 megapixel equivalent. Noise is also kept under control in this 6th generation CCD sensor, going up to 3200 (although only really useable at 1600). Still, that's pretty impressive when many other brands peak at 800 and are only really useable at 400 or lower. Shooting RAW should elicit even better performance, so I'm excited about the potential this camera could give me for a light, go anywhere, high quality digicam option - especially for travel images.


A couple other features of note in relation to the S6500FD - it has a manual zoom lens that goes from true wide angle 28mm to a very respectable 300mm at the telephoto end. The fact that it is a manual zoom lens, and not the electronic style, is also a huge selling point for me - I dislike the 'rocker switch' style zooms as they tend to be fairly imprecise.

The big selling point with this particular model, however, is the FD (Face Detection) hardware built into the camera. Hit the detection button and in 0.05 seconds the camera detects up to 10 faces in the viewfinder, locks on, focuses, and exposes for perfect portraiture. Combine this with 'natural' balanced flash which boosts the ISO to give more exposure to the ambient light in the background and you have a fairly impressive wedding and events camera. Not that I'm doing weddings mind you.

Should be arriving any day now. I'll talk more about my impressions of the camera after I've used it for a couple of weeks. See you then (if not before). BFN.

Canon 5D and 'Hot' Pixels

So I've just got this brand-spanking new 5D, right. And I've taken it out on its first landscape shoot to a favourite spot of mine where I 'test' a lot of my gear and put it through its paces.

I'd heard, and read, a lot about the 5D's low noise - especially with long exposures, so I was very keen to experience this for myself. I enabled the custom function that extends the camera's ISO capabilities, and set the camera to 50. I also put long exposure noise reduction to 'on', and set my tripod up for some long exposures.

The previous night I had been reading a few commentaries on the internet - in particularly one from Ken Rockwell - that claimed there is little to no benefit in shooting RAW. I had been surfing on this topic because, to my horror, I discovered that shooting RAW with the 5D only gives me about 220 images on a 4 Gig card! Whereas turned to high quality jpeg nets upwards of 1000 images. That's more like it, I thought.

So anyway, the high quality jpegs were in the bag (so the speak), and I headed home to marvel at them in Lightroom. And marvel at them I did. Wow, the sensor on the 5D is incredibly noiseless at ISO 50 - even with 30 second exposures. I was impressed.

But hang on a minute. What are those little spots through the images? They seem to be in exactly the same place all the time. Don't tell me I've got dust on the sensor already? I haven't even changed the lens on it - ever. A closer look was called for.


A 'Hot' pixel from the 5D - at 300% enlargement, from a 15 second exposure.

On closer inspection it turned out that dust wasn't the problem at all. My brand spanking 5D has 'hot pixels' - about 6 of them, that show themselves during long exposures (of about 2 seconds or more).

I was gutted, crushed, inconsolable. How could this be? I'd never had this happen on any of the dozen or so camera bodies that I've used or tested over the years. Yet here it was, on the supposed 'King" of them all, the 'noiseless' 5D. My initial thought was to send the camera straight back to Canon and complain bitterly. Luckily, I slept on it over night and decided to do a little more investigating.

Internet discussion on similar problems with the 5D (and other cameras) shows mixed views. About half who responded to another disgruntled 5D owner with hot pixels said 'send it back and complain bitterly'. My thoughts exactly.

But there were others who claimed that hot pixels were to be expected from all camera sensors, and a 'few' hot pixels out of 12.8 million isn't too bad. And anyway, they said, there is a difference between 'stuck', 'dead' and 'hot' pixels. Dead pixels are just that - dead, and won't show any information no matter what settings the camera is on. They always appear as black spots, beause no information is reaching them at all. Stuck pixels are the opposite - the always appear as bright white, because the are 'stuck' and blow out the information they receive. Whereas hot pixels only show up when the exposures are longer (typically over 1 second) and function perfectly normally on speeds below this.

Further testing with my 5D showed that the sensor was indeed fine under 'normal' shooting conditions. No bright or 'stuck' pixels at all. It was something of a relief. But I still wasn't happy.

Then I hit upon a site that claimed cameras could be 'cured' of hot pixels. Apparently all sensors do indeed have them, but they are 'mapped out' before leaving the factory. By activating 'sensor cleaning' from the menu with the lens still on, the camera 're-maps' those pixels, and viola - no more hot pixels. Trouble is, it didn't work.

Lots of people claim it does fix hot pixels, (or maybe it fixes 'stuck' pixels) and I have no cause to doubt them. Maybe I did something wrong? But whatever the case, it didn't fix my hot pixel problem. So I'm sending my 5D back - right?

Well no, actually, because I followed the final solution to the whole 'hot' pixel problem and it worked a treat. Shoot RAW. That's it. Just shoot RAW. That was my problem all along (thanks for nothing Rockwell). I ALWAYS shoot RAW, that's why I've never come across this problem before. I can practically guarantee my other cameras have also had a few hot pixels, but the RAW processing 'maps' these out so they don't appear in the final image. Works great.

So now I have a perfectly functioning 5D, and yet another reason to shoot in RAW. And the solution to the 200 odd images I can store on a 4 Gig card? That one's easy. I've just purchased an 8 Gig card as well.

Confessions of a True Gear-Head!

Doesn't seem that long ago I was writing on this blog about my new Canon 30D - how much I loved it, and how it would see me right for quite some time with my photography. Oh the subtle (and maybe not so subtle?) irony of it all!

Truth is I 'was' happy (notice the use of the past tense) with the 30D, and it is a great camera. The 17-55mm f2.8 and 10-22mm Canon EF-S lenses I paired it up with are some of the best glass I've ever owned, and it was/is truly a great setup.

So why am I using the past tense in all of this?

Well, yeah, I've gone and changed cameras (but not systems), and now - finally - have the 5D as my weapon of choice.


I say 'finally' because really that's the case. I've lusted after the 5D since it came out, and always wanted to own one since I reviewed it for D-Photo. But at $5000NZ for the body, it was a little out of my price range. So I opted for the next best thing - the 30D with its reduced sensor size (and reduced weight/size/specs/price).

So how come I have the 5D now? Well partly it's a change in my financial circumstances (at least I think I can afford one), and partly it's due to the great deals that are out now with the 5D.

Yes, we all know that Canon are about to 'upgrade' the 5D. It has served Canon well over the past 4 years as the camera of choice for those who wanted/needed a full frame sensor but didn't want to (or couldn't afford to) - make the leap to the 1D series (there's some SERIOUS $$$$). And although four years is a long time in the digital technology business, the 'need' to upgrade doesn't make the 5D obsolete. It makes it a bargain.

I'm sure the 'new' 5D (or 7D or 9D or whatever they'll call it) will have live view (don't want it), 16MP (not even sure I need all 12.8 of the 5D's), in-built sensor cleaning (now that would be handy), Digic III processing (what - the 5D's not fast enough?), and a few other tweaks and cosmetic changes. Hey, I know it will be a nice camera.

But I'm a landscape photographer (largely), and what the 5D doesn't have, I don't need. At ISO 50, with a 30sec exposure, this thing is NOISELESS! I don't know what I can happily blow up the 12.8MP sensor images to - haven't tried yet. But I'm willing to bet it's BIG. As big as I'll need anyways.

My 'kit' came with a Canon 24-105mm f4 'L' IS lens - and oh my lordy, what a lens! It's solid, beautifully made, balances well on the 5D (haven't decided whether I need the 5D's vertical grip yet), and makes crisp, clear, contrasty, colourful images.

It also means that my 17-55mm EF-S f2.8 and 10-22mm EF-S f3.4-4.5 won't work on the 5D with its full-frame sensor, so out they go. That's kinda sad - but not too sad when you consider what I've replaced them with. The aforementioned 24-105mm f4 'L', and a 17-40mm f4 'L', to go with my earlier purchase of a 70-200 mm f4 'L' - and my f4 'L' lens trinity is complete! Yeeehaaa!

I believe the saying is "Happier than a pig in mud"?


"West Coast Realtor" - Canon 5D and 24-105mm f4 'L' lens.

Canon 70-200mm f4L Initial thoughts

Well, I weakened, and I bought one.

Not brand new - I got it off an internet auction site here in NZ (Trademe) - but it's close enough to mint condition. So now I have my own white(ish) 'L' lens. So what do I think of it?

Hey, it's Canon, it's white, and it an 'L' series lens. What's not to like! But seriously, take one look at the image of Emily on the left and you'll see what's not to like. This lens is 'sharp'. And I mean 'tack' sharp. Wide open at f4 her eyes are in blazingly crisp focus, while the rest of her softens out beautifully into a creamy background. Wow.

Not only that, but it's a joy to hold, focuses quicker than you can say 'snap', and is extremely well balanced on the 30D with grip attached. The supplied lens hood fits snuggly (at the moment), although I have heard that the plastic varieties loose their grip after a while. Time will tell on that.

It's a big lens, but it's not a 'really big' lens, if ya know what I mean. You'll definitely get noticed wielding this baby down at the local sports field on a Saturday morning, but you'll be able to carry it around comfortably most of the day and it won't need a tripod (or even a monopod with good light) to support it. I didn't go for the IS version, and only time will tell if I regret that decision or not. But hey, even if I do, I can always sell this lens down the track - probably for as much as I just spent - and upgrade to the IS version if I feel I simply have to.

Here's another of my girl that show's the lenses potential. It's a fantastic portrait lens, but I'm looking forward to taking it out on some sporting shoots as well so I can really get a feel for what it's capable of producing with the 30D. Some even claim that it is their favourite landscape lens, but I think I'll need a little more convincing on that?

And speaking of landscapes... I downloaded a new 'Picture Style' for my 30D off Canon's website last weekend and loaded it onto the camera. It's called 'Autumn Hues', and I've installed it in preparation for an Autumn shoot down to Arrowtown that I'm planning. Adding the style was very easy to do - once I'd found all the software updates on Canon's website and installed them on my iMac. Canon's site has all the information set out step-by-step, and you simply follow your nose. I'll be interested to see how it performs as opposed to the 'normal' or 'landscape' picture style settings. I suspect it's nothing you can't create yourself by boosting certain colours later on in Photoshop? But anything that can be achieved quickly 'in-camera' and not later on the computer gets my vote.

I've also bought 20 rolls of Fuji Velvia 100 for the Pentax 645, so I'll try them out with the Autumn colours on the trip as well. Should be magical.

First Images from the Pentax 645

I've used the Pentax 645 for a couple of weeks now - long enough to put through several rolls of film. I've been using Fuji slide film for the most part, but have also started to put through some Agfa Optima colour negative as well.

There's no lab where I live that can process 120 E-6, so I have had to send it to the nearest city (Christchurch) and have them courier the developed and sleeved film back to me. Adds another few days to the whole process, but that's the 'joy' of working with film again - it certainly isn't immediate.

Long story short - I've really enjoyed using the Pentax 645 and I'm glad I've got it. No, it won't replace my existing digital kit - which I also still love - but it certainly forces me to shoot differently, which I like. Anyway, I sent my first four rolls of 120 away recently and they arrived back yesterday. So what did they turn out like?


Not bad really. I'm very happy with the 645 format for shooting, and the image it produces is certainly large enough for my purposes. One thing I've 're-learnt' by looking over the slides is that I need to bracket my exposures more often. I basically relied on the Pentax's built in meter for everything, and it's probably .5 to 1 stop 'under' exposing almost every frame. Must remember to bracket!

Having said that, I'm very pleased with the colours (although that has a lot to do with the lovely Fuji slide film), both lenses look sharp and contrasty, and the detail from the medium format image is worth the price of admission alone. And before I forget - all the images here are basically being shown full-frame, with perhaps a slight cropping when a horizon needs to be levelled in Photoshop.


Above is an image that I have also taken a lot using digital cameras - one of my favourite spots to go and 'test' gear from. This was taken using the 150mm lens, and again no complaints about colour, contrast or sharpness. The colours here are pretty much straight from camera, with a little sharpening applied due to scanning for the web.

While we're on the subject of scanning, it may pay to outline my scanning workflow, because this is where I believe the medium format slide comes into its own.

These images have been reduced for web purposes (obviously), but the beauty of scanning medium format is that you can set your own dpi (dots per inch), depending of course, on what your scanner can go up to. What do I mean by this?

Well, if you take digital cameras, they are 'measured' in 'mega' pixels - that is 'million' pixels, depending on the size of image sensor they use. If, for example, you have a camera with a sensor that captures 3000 pixels across by 2000 pixels down, then you have a 6 megapixel camera - it's capable of capturing 6 million pixels. That's pretty common. Now if you take that file, and print it out at a 'hi-resolution' of 300dpi (300 dots per inch is seen by the human eye as continuous tone), you will get a print slightly smaller than A4 - about an 8x10 inch print (give or take). Not bad, and cetainly about as big as many people want to print.

But what say you want to print bigger? Well then you have to 'increase' the size of the file - either by making each pixel larger, or by 'adding' extra pixels to expand the image beyond what it's optimal printing size should be. You can get away with this - up to a point. But it isn't long before things start to look decidedly dodgy and you get that classic 'digital' pixelated look to your enlarged image. So with any digital camera, you are constrained with enlargements by the megapixel rating your sensor has. And as with the case of most things, bigger means better.


As a landscape photographer, I want to print my work big - as big as I can. So following what I've outlined above I will need to go for a camera with as many megapixels as I can lay my hands on. Right? Well yeah - problem is those camera cost a small fortune and I'm kinda lacking in the fortune department. But there is another way...

With my medium format slide, I can scan it to whatever dpi I desire - up to 12800 (as much as my Epson scanner goes up to). So, for example, the originals of the images shown here were scanned at 3200dpi. This took a speedy 4 minutes each, and resulted in a 100MB file! That's 6894 x 5111 pixels with a final optimal print size of 58 x 43cms at 300dpi. The equivalent of a 35.2 megapixel camera!!! Do you know how much it would cost me for a 35.2 megapixel camera - if they made them! Pentax is rumoured to be producing a digital 645 that will use a 31 megapixel chip - but it will cost an arm and a leg (when and if it eventually comes out), and I'm quite partial to my arms and legs thank you very much.

My Epson V700 is a professional flatbed scanner - with image quality approaching that of drum scanning (the very best scanning devices) - and it wasn't cheap. But still, if you factor in a top of the line scanner and shoot medium format you are still coming out smelling of roses, and kick digital butt in the megapixel file stakes.

I was curious, and wanted to know what 12800 dpi did for a file. So I scanned one at that resolution as well. The resulting image took 35minutes to scan, and then another 10 minutes to load into Photoshop. Boy, with times like this you just 'know' it's gonna be a big file. And I wasn't disappointed. Scanning a 645 slide at 12800dpi gives you a 1.6 Gigabyte file. That's right ladies and gentlemen - GIGABYTE file. Not megabyte - Gigabyte! That's 27815 x 20453 pixels - a 2.3 x 1.7 metre print at 300dpi! Unbelievable. I tried to calculate how many megapixels that was and my calculator exploded. It literally didn't have enough spaces for it. Even I don't need to print that big. But I 'could'. With film.

Think about it.


And finally - (sorry for the extra long post) - I've already started adding to my medium format kit. I managed to pick up a dedicated Pentax AF280T flash and had to give it a whirl. I'm very happy, and a little surprised, at the excellent results I got using it in full auto mode. The above test shot of my wife (thanks honey, I won't show it to anyone, honest), was taken in very low light, but has turned out perfectly. The light was so low, in fact, that I had trouble focusing. But I bounced the flash off the ceiling, and it has hit the exposure bang on. Impressive.

Is shooting medium format film for everyone? No, I'm not suggesting that it is. But maybe it has digital advantages - over digital? Maybe it's not the tired old dinosaur the camera industry would have you believe it is? Maybe.

Fish On!

I have dabbled a little in the past with catching fish - but never very successfully. So I was very excited when Rob, one of the guys at church, asked me if I'd like to go fishing with them one weekend. He builds his own boats, which in itself is pretty impressive. But what attracted me was the 'guarantee' of catching a fish!

I'm as primal as the next man. The old 'hunter gatherer' instinct is ingrained in our psyche, and I was keen to provide tea for the family. There's something about catching (yes, that could also read 'killing') your own meal. Heck of a lot more satisfying than "whipping down to the supermarket to pick up a couple of things" for tea.

It was a beautiful Saturday when I got the call that it would be on that day. I was very excited, but also a little anxious. Water and me don't get on too well, but Rob also guarantees that his boats are 'unsinkable' due to the use of polystyrene floats placed under the seats. So armed with a rod, life jacket, and an unsinkable boat, not to mention the guarantee of catching fish, it was all on for a very exciting and fun day of fishing.

After a successful launch into the lagoon, it was off into the headwaters of the Grey River, in search of the mighty 'Kawhai' (car-why). And it wasn't long before Niki - our Pastor's wife, was reeling in the first fish of the day. It was a very healthy 6 pound fish, and we were off to a good start. Behind Niki is Henk - outdoors man, fisherman and skilled net brandisher extraordinaire. He also fillets a mean fish.

It's very fitting that Niki caught the first fish, after something of a 'drought' that her husband Tim was very keen to have her on about. He even suggested to Rob that we should rethink Niki coming out with us, least she jinx the expedition. Well, needless to say Niki has had the last laugh, and Tim has had to eat his words (literally).

Once the first fish was landed, it was all on. No sooner had I cast my hook into the river, it was snaffled by a hungry Kawhai and my first catch was on the way. What a buzz! And a pretty good sized fish as well. Thanks to my pal Eric for taking this photo of me with my first fish. Cheers mate!

In fact, here's a photo of me mate Eric, showing off just a couple of the spoils of a great days fishing.


It was an amazing day, spent on a beautiful river, catching lovely fish. Thanks to Rob for suggesting we all go out, for organising the trip, and for building an amazing boat that made it all possible. We tripped around the river for a good three hours, caught plenty of fish for our tea (the kids had their favourite - home made fish and chips), and spent a day out that none of us will forget in a hurry.


Couldn't resist one last photo - of 'Captain' Rob and 'First Mate' Eric rowing us ashore. And no - we didn't make Rob row the whole trip. The boat is actually powered by an outboard motor, but Rob and Eric used the oars to position us carefully for a perfect landing back on terra firma. Well done chaps.

My 'new' Pentax 645 kit

My wife tells me that when I set my mind to something, I don't muck around. Maybe she's right.

After musing for about a week on what owning a medium format kit would be like, I now own one! Granted, it's not the latest and greatest auto focus digital billion megapixel jobby - in fact it's not even digital! It takes 'dum-da-da-dum' (drum roll please and a collective gasp of breath while the ladies faint and the men avert their eyes)... FILM. I know - tell me about it!


Yep, there it is, as taken from the internet auction posting that I won last night. Consists of a Pentax 645, 2 120 film holders, standard 75mm f2.8 lens (50mm equivalent in 35mm terms) and 150mm f3.5 (100mm lens in traditional 35mm terms). All for the princely sum of NZ$500. Which I thought wasn't too bad.

Of course to get the kit ready for landscapes - which is 'primarily' what I want to use it for, I will need to buy a wide angle lens for it - probably both the 45mm f2.8 and the 35mm f3.5 eventually, together with some Cokin adapter rings etc. So the total kit will probably reach the NZ$1000 mark before too long. Still not bad for an entire medium format setup I reckon.

I still have the 67 that I will take out again this weekend. Between it, and the 645, I'll have a fair idea about whether I want to continue down this medium format track or not. And believe me, with the price of digital medium format, that will mean using film for quite some time to come. Who would'a thunk it!?