Intentional Camera Movement

I thought I should post a few images after a dirge of technical posts.

I think I've found my photography 'mojo' recently after playing with the popular 'intentional camera movement' technique. Lots of photographers are using it to spark more creativity in their work, and it's certainly done the trick for me.

Kapiti Island, Raumati Beach, Wellington

It actually started early last year, when I was on holiday in Wellington. We stayed at Raumati, and would spend the evening walking on the beach. I took a lot of 'sharp' images of the island, and once I had them in the bag, just started to 'play' with panning the camera during long exposures.

I was happy with the results, and they were some of my favourite shots from the holiday.

Coal Creek Forest Interior

Didn't think much more of the long exposure shots until I was out taking photos with my daughter in the West Coast bush and I wanted to show her how to have fun and be creative with her camera. So we experimented again with long exposure shots, this time panning vertically to echo the trees. Again, came back with some shots I really loved.

Cobden Tiphead

So then I realised there might actually be something to all of this long exposure stuff, and I started going out to intentionally make things happen. I'm fortunate to live close to coastal beaches, with lots of opportunities to experiment with the coastline, rocks, waves etc. The late evening light and a reasonably small aperture (f16) gives me plenty of long blurring shutter speeds.

Breaking Waves

I'm enjoying shooting everything from abstract wave action, to more obvious landscapes. I find the natural movement of the waves helps to increase the blurring effect, but it's not absolutely necessary to shoot around water - I just like it :-)

Cobden Beach

There's so much scope to take this Intentional Camera Movement technique in so many directions, but be prepared to take LOTS of photos. I find I shoot about 100 of one subject, and maybe get two that I like!? There's no set formula for how long to leave the shutter open, which way to move the camera or even 'how' to move the camera. Shimmy, shake, rock and roll (or even pan if you have to) - it's all good.

I plan to do some more forest interiors next. Got a few ideas for some very abstract fern images. Can't wait.

Another 'oldie but a goodie' - Nikon D70

Recently I sold all of my photography gear after finishing my Wedding business, in the belief that the new wave of mirrorless cameras was where it was at. These small cameras are everywhere, and if the new camera elite are to be believed, then the days of the 'traditional' SLR are numbered.

This may well be true - from a technology standpoint. Newer (we are led to believe) is always better, and all the camera manufacturers now seem to be obsessed with creating mirrorless systems - even within the traditional SLR form factor.

But try as I might, I just haven't gelled with these new mirrorless systems. For me they are too small, too fiddly and too 'compact camera-ish' in their handling. I hate having to hold the camera out at arms length and use the lcd screen to compose and take an image. So the more they make these lcd screens act like touch screens on smart phones, the more I balk.

Instead, what I've found myself doing, is going back - way back - to some of the first digital SLR's, and I ended up purchasing a Canon 20D. And what a great camera. Solid, fast, simple menu navigation, lots of customisation - all you could need in a camera. It holds, feels, works and performs like a 'real' camera should - and produces fantastic digital files to boot. I've always maintained that pixels are never where it's at. For me, at least, 8MP is definitely enough. Yes, I'm old (46 this year), and yes, I'm obviously a traditionalist - having learnt the craft of photography way back in the old days of film (which yes, I do still shoot occasionally). Maybe you can't teach on old dog new tricks, and a leopard doesn't change it's spots etc, etc. But I also passionately believe that we are sold a lie every year, by camera manufacturers who are desperate to sell new products to an unsuspecting public who seem just as desperate to buy them. Deep down, subconsciously (or perhaps even consciously) we know we don't need 24MP. But we may as well 'upgrade' to them - right? I mean, it would be silly not to have them, just in case. Just for that one-off billboard sale.

Nikon D70

Damn. I'm sounding like a grumpy old man again. And I don't mean to - honest. And where am I going with all of this anyway? I thought this post was about the D70? Good question. And it is. So this is what happened...

My daughter, Emily, is in her high school production, and it was the final performance last Friday night. We had booked to go as a family to see her final performance, and as we were getting ready to go I thought "heck, I'd better take a camera."

Trouble is, I only have a standard 18-55mm lens and 50mm f1.8 for the 20D at the moment, which in a large school hall probably wouldn't give me the range I needed to get close enough, even if I managed to sit close to the front row.

So I told myself it would have to be a 'photography free' event, and just go and enjoy the performance. But there was a part of me that wasn't happy with this. I'm not the 'always have to capture everything on camera' type of Dad, and am quite happy leaving the camera at home. But this was Emily's first ever production, and I thought that in twenty years from now she'd be glad that her old man took some photos for her to remember the experience with. But would I get away with it on the 20D?

And then I remembered that my wife actually has a camera too - a Nikon D70 I bought for her a couple of years ago - hidden in the wardrobe somewhere. And didn't that have a fairly decent telephoto with it? I pulled it out of the camera bag, and sure enough, along with the standard 18-55mm lens was a Nikkor 75-240mm telephoto. Multiply 240mm by x1.5 and you get 360mm, which was going to be more than enough to get close, as long as I could get a reasonably good seat.

Emily performing in 'Dreams on Broadway' (she's in the middle)

We decided to go early and we managed to get aisle seats just three rows back from the front. I set the D70's ISO to as high as it will go (ISO 1600), and hoped that this would give me a fast enough shutter speed with the relatively 'slow' maximum aperture of 4.5/5.6 on the Nikkor 75-240mm.

Ruby Kemp as Broadway wannabe 'Tracy Charles'

I needn't have worried, Sitting just three rows back (probably about 5 meters from the stage), the 75-240mm gave more than enough reach. In fact, most of the time I found myself pulling back to the middle ranges because 240mm was too close. And with the stage lights, ISO1600 was giving me a very hand-holdable 180th to 250th sec shutter speed (and sometimes down to a 90th depending on the lights). The D70 is such a well balanced camera, and the 75-240mm such a light lens, that I had no trouble hand holding at those speeds. Not all the final images were tack sharp - but most of them were.

Heather Evans doing the 'Time Warp'

So I had the reach, and I had the speed. But the D70 is an 'old' camera... around 10 years old. And I was shooting it at its absolute maximum ISO of 1600. The images will look like mud, right?

Do they look like mud to you? I needn't have worried about the noise, and in fact, when I got them back and downloaded the images into Lightroom I was pretty amazed at the results. Yes, there is noise there at ISO1600 - of course there is. But it cleans up in Lightroom remarkably easily, and even with some sharpening applied, the final result is superb. And I do mean superb. I wouldn't hesitate shooting the D70 at ISO1600 - and I guarantee the same would be true of the Canon 20D (which actually goes up higher to 3200).

Yes, I know the 'latest' and the greatest can shoot at ISO 6 million and give clean results. Whoopie. I didn't need ISO 6 million, did I? 1600 was good enough, and the results were great. It's yet another case of the 'do we really need it' syndrome in technology.

The cast of Greymouth High School's 'Dreams on Broadway'

Am I trying to justify my decision 'not' to spend lots of money on camera gear? Maybe. Would I start using a Canon 5D MkIII tomorrow if you 'gave' me one - you bet (as long as a nice lens came with it)! Would I start using an olympus EP-3 if you gave me one tomorrow? No, I wouldn't. I'd stick to my Canon 20D - and my wife's D70. In fact, now I have a bit of a quandary. With my friends 50D on permanent loan, my own 20D, and my wife's D70 I've probably got more cameras than I need.

But please, if you're out there and you're listening... seriously think about how much camera you actually need for your photography. If you're a sports shooter and a pro, by all means get the latest and greatest D4 or 1D Mk4, although you may not need these either? Don't just buy it because it's the next big thing. Your 'old' camera doesn't stop working just because the newest version is released every year. Don't feel 'inferior' because you have an 'old' camera and uncle Bob has the latest and greatest. It's unnecessary and just plain wrong.

Clean your own Sensor

I've always stayed away from cleaning a digital sensor. It seemed to have a high potential for disaster, so I have left it to the experts.

But all that changed recently after a friend of mine 'loaned' me her 50D, after she was the lucky recipient of a brand spanking new 5D MkIII. It has had a bit of a hard life (the 50D), and was in desperate need of a sensor clean.

Arctic butterfly in sexy lime green :-)

Another friend of mine owns an Arctic Butterfly sensor cleaning brush. So I put 2 and 2 together and thought "What the heck, why not try and clean the sensor myself?"

In reality, it's a pretty simple process. SLR's have a 'mirror lock up' function - sometimes even called 'sensor clean' in the menu, that will flip the mirror up and out of the way, leaving the sensor exposed. Only it isn't really exposing the sensor, since there are other filters and micro lenses etc on top of the filter - and this is where the dust settles.

The 50D does have a sensor cleaning system that vibrates to shake the dust off every time you turn the camera on and off, but this isn't 100% effective (obviously), and with enough abuse, the sensor will have to be cleaned manually.

There are quite a few 'do it yourself' solutions out there, but for me, the Arctic Butterfly (while not cheap), seems the best option because it doesn't rely on any chemical swabs going anywhere near the sensor.

All you do is initiate the sensor cleaning mode on your camera (follow the manuals instructions), which will expose the dirty sensor, and then turn the Arctic Butterfly 'on' a few times to spin the bristles and discharge any dirt or static before wiping it across the sensor. This is important. Don't spin the brush inside the camera!

The sensor on the 50D before the sensor clean.

A quick snapshot of a blank wall with the camera set on a small aperture (f16 for lots of depth of field) revealed all the nastiness. Lots of ugly dust bunnies.

And after the cleaning....

Wow! Is it really that easy? Yep. If you look really close, it's not absolutely perfect - but it's pretty darn good. Clean enough for me at least.

So there you have it. Don't be afraid to clean your own sensor if it needs it. And if an Arctic Butterfly is a little too costly for you, then why not get together with a few other photographers and buy one together. You should only have to use it once a year or so (if you're careful with lens changes), so you could share it around? Just a thought...

And back to Canon... (again)

It's been seven months since I posted on this site, which seems like a long time between posts. And I suppose it is. But I haven't been silent in the blogisphere. For the last few months I've concentrated my time and effort on writing about my Fuji X10, over at The Fuji X(10) Files. And to be honest, I thought that was going to be that for my NZ Digital blog. The DSLR is dead, long live the mirrorless compact! Vive la Revolution!

It seems that everywhere you look, and in everything you read nowadays, mirrorless cameras are the be-all and end-all of photography. Over at TWIP (This Week In Photography) it's really all they talk about now on their podcast. Contributors to the show wax lyrical about their own new mirrorless compact camera systems, and are even suggesting that the 'new' photographer forget about the 'traditional' SLR style camera as a venerable dinosaur, destined for the scrap heap - and invest instead in these 'new' micro/aps-c sized mirrorless camera systems. Sure, clients might initially think you're a bit 'amateur' if you turn up to a shoot with an Olympus Pen or Sony NEX - but just show them your work and eventually they'll 'get over it'.

Zack Arias and David Hobby worship at the alter of the Fuji X100S because, like, dude, like, it's like the best, like, camera EVER! Exactly how much did Fuji pay them?

Anyway, moving right along. No, I haven't used the Fuji X100S - but I have used the Fuji X100. And it didn't change my life, rock my world or make it on to my 'world's best camera' list. Sorry Fuji. I haven't used the Fuji X20, but I do own the Fuji X10. And I'm selling it. For lots of reasons - some of which I'll get to shortly. I haven't used a Sony NEX (5,6,7), but I have owned an Olympus Pen EP3. And I sold it. For lots of reasons - some of which I'll get to shortly.

Ok, so we've established what I haven't got. What is it that I have got?  A Nikon D600, D7000, D4? Nope. A Canon 7D, 60D, 5D Mk2? Nope. How about a Canon 20D.

Canon 20D. An oldie, but a goodie?

Seriously. Don't laugh. Well OK, laugh if you want. I don't care. I'm selling my Fuji X10 and with the money getting a Canon 20D with EF-S 18-55mm. yes, it's old. Almost 10 years old in fact (it was first introduced in 2004), but should that really count against it?

The D20 is an 8.2MP APS-C sized CMOS sensor camera that, at the time of its release (and right through with the D30), defined how good an 8MP camera could be. It was the standard by which all other 8MP (and many other larger sensors) cameras were judged. 'Amazingly clean images' was how one review at the time put it. And amazing responsiveness - with a top speed of 1/8000th, a sync speed of 1/250th and a burst rate of 5 frames per second - with instant (or near enough) start up and review times for images. All encased in a rugged magnesium alloy chasis. What's not to like?

And I'm being serious here. What more do you really need to take great images? Do you really need live view? Or video? Or super-ubber low-light performance? It's only got a 1.8" lcd on the back, but do you really need bigger? It's nice, but do you need it?

I've been 'mucking around' with these mirrorless camera megastars for the last year, but try as I might (and believe me, I have tried), I just don't like using them. The images from the EP-3 just didn't grab me. They were noisy (for the most part), and difficult to get a good print from. I shot using the optional EVF so i could use a 'conventional' shooting style (camera up to the eye), but even then, the camera just felt 'fiddly'. And I don't have big hands at all.

It's worse with the FujiX10. It's even smaller, and fiddlier than the EP-3. And although it's machined from aluminum, it still manages to come across as a bit of a plasticky 'toy' camera. Retro and 'cool' looking it may be. But I found it impractical and tricky to use in reality. The files are sharp and detailed enough - when the camera gets the autofocus right - but it really only works when composing using the rear lcd screen, a shooting position I thoroughly detest.

OK, maybe I'm old and set in my ways (small disclosure, I'm 45), but this new wave of mirrorless midgets really do nothing for me. I realised this only last week, when I had to change the battery in my daughters Canon 10D (and that's really old technology). I picked the 10D up and it stopped me in my tracks. I literally did a double take, as I had the 10D in my hands. it just felt so right. As does the 20D.

Perhaps that's the nub of it right there? After 25 years of shooting with an SLR, my muscle memory is just hard-wired for this type of shooting experience? If that leads me to a brilliant camera like the 20D, then that's fine by me. I really don't want to spend another 25 years changing my shooting habits to conform with the crowd. I guess I'll go down my own road, go out, and take my own images!?

Crumpler 6 Million Dollar Camera Bag

What is it with photographers and camera bags? Much like some women with shoes, we seem to have a wardrobe full of them, to suit any occasion and gear configuration.

I'm as guilty as the next guy, so when I got my Nikon D90 and changed my lenses, naturally I also decided it was time for a new bag to fit it all in :-)

But this time, rather than simply adding yet another bag to the pile, I sold several of my other, less frequently used bags (some of them basically brand new), and really put some serious research into what I might replace them all with.

I have kept my trusty and faithful Lowepro Mini Trekker backpack - a bag I've had and used extensively for about ten years, and it's still going strong. I use it on all the weddings I go to, but it's the sort of bag that gets very heavy once full of all the gear I take, and needs an assistant to lug around for me all day. I've also used it on landscape shoots, but I find a backpack style bag awkward to use at a beach or forest when I want access to other lenses etc. You really need to take the pack of and put it down - sometimes not really ideal in harsh environments.

What I decided to go for was a 'messenger' style shoulder bag. Something that could still carry a reasonable amount of gear, but allow for easier access to changing lenses out in the field. I had previously owned a 'slingshot' style backpack which was supposed to do the same thing, but I hated it (your experiences may of course vary) and wanted a more traditional messenger bag instead.

I visited lots of camera bag websites, read the interweb reviews, and watched the youtube videos, to find out what others had experienced with their bags. In doing so, I kept coming bag to one brand and style in particular - the Crumpler 6 Million Dollar Home.

From what everyone was saying who had experience with the Crumpler it seemed to be the 'Goldilocks' of messenger bags - not too big and not too small... just right. Big enough to fir a DSLR body with grip, a couple of extra lenses, flash, batteries, cards etc... Basically, the ideal bag. So, without any further ado, I bought one.

They come in lots of funky colours, but the auction I won was for the basic black model (although as you can see, it has a pretty cool fluro green interior).  The interior has a large central space for the camera and two side areas that are sectioned off to make four extra spaces. In these slots go the flash and other lenses you want to carry around for the day.

A mesh pocket in the top flap is enough to carry spare cards in, while a velcro front opening holds spare batteries and a card reader. At least that's how I've set my 6 Million Dollar Home up.

All the internal dividers are removable, so you can set it up in other ways if you prefer, but the way I have described above is how the bag comes set up initially - and how it seems to make the most sense.

As you can see, you can fit a lot of stuff in the 6 Million Dollar Home - although of course the more stuff you get in, the heavier it becomes. Shown above is a Nikon D90 with grip, with the Sigma 10-20mm attached. An SB600 flash, 18-105mm VR, 50mm f1.8D, 35mm f1.8G, two spare batteries, SD card holder, and Kingston card reader - that all fit comfortably into the Crumpler. That's pretty much all my gear, and I certainly wouldn't take it all with me on a day shoot. Although I could.

I'm very please with the size, ruggedness and usability of Crumpler's 6 Million Dollar Home. DigitalRev TV have just done a camera bag review in which the Crumpler came out on top in most of the categories. If your looking for a messenger style bag, that can hold a decent amount of gear comfortably over the course of a day, then I highly recommend you consider the Crumpler 6 Million Dollar Home. I couldn't be happier.

Sigma 10-20mm f4/5.6 EX DC HSM Ultra Wide angle

I'm determined to get out and about as much as I can this summer with the D90 and I'm looking forward to the many fantastic shots we'll take together. Weddings aside, it's the landscape images I'm most excited about taking, and a large part of this is having the Sigma 10-20mm f4/5.6 ultra-wide angle lens in my kit.

The weather has been miserable lately, but we finally got a fine day on Sunday, so I went out late afternoon to one of my favorite coastal beaches to try the 10-20mm out.

9 Mile Beach - Nikon D90 with Sigma 10-20mm @ f8

I must confess I've never really been an ultra-wide fan, although I have previously owned a Sigma 15-30mm (the one with bulbous front element and built-in hood) that I really enjoyed using. It was a sharp and fun lens to use, and restored my faith in Sigma lenses after having a couple of disappointing prior experiences.

The Sigma 10-20mm f4/5.6 EX lens is a solid, compact lens with a fast and quiet HSM focusing motor, which allows for full-time manual 'tweaking' of the focus, even when you remain in autofocus mode. Not that you really need to tweak the focus on an ultra-wide. Set it to f8 and just about everything from front to back will be in sharp focus (see above).

Same settings as above. Why change a winning formula :-)

The 'EX' designation means that this is one of Sigma's 'pro' series lenses, although it is specifically designed for the smaller APS-C sensored cameras like the D90. If I was ever to move up to full frame, I would have to sell the lens - but that's a long way off yet, and may never happen?

The lens is finished in the famous Sigma 'matt black crinkle' which also, famously, tends to wear off - although my lens shows no signs of that at the moment. I must admit I'm not a huge fan of this type of finish and I think in more recent models Sigma has moved away from this to a more traditional (harder wearing) finish.

Lots of detail and heaps of colour - that's what ultra-wides are made for!

Whether the finish eventually wears off or not is neither here nor there though - what really matters in a wide angle landscape lens is the colour, contrast and sharpness - and the Sigma has this in spades! The smallish petal type lens hood does a reasonable job of shading the 77mm glass frontage, although I would be careful (i.e. avoid) shooting directly into the sun. When zoomed all the way out to 10mm (the equivalent of 15mm in full frame!) you can still have the sun glaring into your view when it feels like it's behind you!

The huge field of view that this lens afford is what makes it such fun, but also what makes it rather tricky to use effectively. Tilt the lens down and horizons will start to bow, yet not alarmingly so. The lens is actually well designed to avoid any massive distortion - but you can make it happen if you really try (and if you like the effect). Focus was fast, snappy and silent on my D90 - and the large zoom ring turns smoothly and is a joy to use.

NOT taken with the Sigma 10-20mm. I just like the shot :-)

Sigma's 10-20mm f4/5.6 EX DC HSM is a fantastic lens and a great inclusion to any landscape photographers arsenal. Some may disregard this lens for its 'faster' (and more expensive) brother, the 10-20mm f3.5 - but why? Seriously, if you're looking at an ultra-wide angle lens to isolate your subject and blur out the background with a wide open aperture, then you're looking at the wrong lenses my friend. Yes, you will most likely be using these lenses in low light - but you should also be using them at around f8 anyway, and your camera should be on a tripod! Even if I had the f3.5 version, I wouldn't shoot with it wide open, that's just not what these lenses are for. At f8 to f11, both lenses will be practically identical - so save yourself some money and opt for the 'slower' f4/5.6 version. This is landscape photography, not portraiture.

I'm very happy with the lens, and with the first images I've taken with it. Hopefully, over the course of this summer, there'll be plenty more where that came from.

Nikkor 35mm f1.8G is the keeper

My last few posts have been about lens selection for my D90 - and it is amazing to me how tied up in knots I still manage to get myself over lens selection after all these years.

I thought I would shoot only primes on the D90 - but I've come to realise with DX that this is somewhat unrealistic. Before coming to this realisation, however, I managed to buy a 24mm, 35mm and 50mm! This really only gives me a 35-70mm equivalent reach with all three lenses. Surely the 35mm could do the work of all three - couldn't it?

Back in the film days, I never would have thought of buying a 35-70mm lens - it was considered a 'lazy man's 50mm', since the 50 could pretty much cover this range if you 'zoomed' with your feet. Since the 35mm f1.8G is 'roughly' equivalent to the standard 50 of the film days, I set about to see if it really could replace the other two - and just how much 'feet zooming' would be involved.

Very unscientifically, I went outside, marked a line on the grass, and took a photo with my 35mm.

Nikkor 35mm f1.8G @ f8

This was my field of view (fov) with the 35mm lens - and represents my 'landscape' shot. It equates to a 'standard' 50mm fov when shooting with a cropped sensor DX body like the D90.

I then took a photo at the same spot with my 24mm lens.

Nikkor 24mm f2.8 @ f8. Shot at exactly the same spot as the 35mm

It is certainly wider - about a 35mm fov in traditional terms.

Then I used the 50mm as well...

Nikkor 50mm f1.8 @ f8. Shot at exactly the same spot as the 35mm

So we are certainly getting closer - and with the three images have the same images we would get by zooming in and out with a 35-70mm lens on a DX (or film) body on the same spot.

Now, how much zooming with my feet do i have to do to replicate the 24mm and 50mm shots with the 35mm lens?

I stepped back 5 of my paces (I'm 5"10', so probably went back roughly 5 meters) and took this shot with the 35mm...

Nikkor 35mm back 5 large paces

Compare it with the shot taken with the 24mm and the fov is pretty close. The 24mm is giving a little more exaggerated foreground perspective, but the images are very similar.

OK. So then, back from my starting position, I moved forward two large paces (about 2 meters) and took this shot...

Nikkor 35mm forward 2 large paces

I'm a little off on the framing, and maybe could have taken half a step more forward, but basically I'm there or there abouts with only 2 steps forward.

So to all intents and purposes, taking two steps forward, or 5 steps backwards, is all the 'zooming' I need to do with the 35mm to cover the fov of a 35-70mm lens, and get rid of the 24mm and 50mm primes from my bag in one fowl swoop.

And it turns out it's even easier for portraiture.

35mm @f2.8 - 3 meters away

Here's a quick shot of my son Joshua taken with the 35mm about 3 large paces away. He's 11yrs old, and fills the frame easily.

50mm @f2.8 - 3 meters away

Same spot, this time with the 50mm attached (acting like a 75mm on the D90).

Step forward so I am only 2 meters away, and took another shot with the 35mm...

Nikkor 35mm @f2.8 - 2 meters away

So only one step forward with the 35mm gets me into 50mm territory when shooting portraits.

Nikkor 50mm @ f2.8 - 2 meters away

Switching back to the 50mm and taking a shot obviously gets me even closer still. Now we're talking 'classic' head and shoulders (although Josh is only 11 and not fully grown yet :-).

Move 1 step closer with the 35mm - so there's only about 1 meter between you and your subject (probably as close as you want to get to without invading someone's personal space - unless you know then really well), and you match the 50mm for head and shoulders portraiture...

Nikkor 35mm @ f2.8 - 1 meter away

As I said at the beginning, this isn't particularly scientific. But it was clear enough to convince me that 'zooming with the feet' with a 35mm could effectively cover all three lenses within the 35-70mm range - comfortably enough so that I am now selling both the 50mm and the 24mm primes.

Yes, there will be times when it's not possible to back up 5 meters, or maybe even go forward 2 meters - but then there's always cropping of the standard 35mm image if you really are desperate.

And besides, the 35mm f1.8G is just a drop dead gorgeous lens to use! I really love the look of Nikon's newer 'G' lenses, so I'm happier to part with the other two for now. I'll test the 'bokeh' another time - this seems to be the down-side of the 35mm 'G', but I wan't to test this out for myself. Will post my thoughts when I do.