Sony Alpha 200

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.

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

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

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...

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

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

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.