Monthly Archives: February 2012

Sensor (non)sense

Nikon bodies

Forget theory.

I am tired of reading high falutin’ theories about digital sensor limitations. Diffraction this, pixel size that. Frankly, none of this meshes with my experience which is that the only objective measure is …. subjective.

Yesterday Nikon announced its latest full frame DSLR, the D800, with a 36mp Sony sensor. That’s more than three times the pixels in the D700, which is renowned (along with the like sensor in the D3) as the class leading low light/high ISO performer. If it measures up then a lot of people will have their Nikkors in a twist as the sensor will brutally disclose the shortcomings of their non-pro grade optics.

The D800 sensor.

Now I’m reading that D800 users will find that even their pro lenses are not good enough for the new sensor. The oft read statement is that “the sensor outresolves the lens”. Poppycock. A perfect example is my experience with the G1 and G3 Panasonics, with MFT sensors whose area is just 25% of full frame. When the 12mp G1 sensor gave way to the 16mp G3 version there was lots of noise about …. noise. As in “the new sensor will be too noisy, it has too many pixels”. Utter nonsense. Large continuous tone areas with the G3, using the same lenses as on my G1, are so superior for lack of noise that it’s simply no contest. I’m talking based on 18″ x 24″ prints here. Scale that sensor up to full frame and you have a 64mp monster. And why not if it’s better? We can expect to see pixel counts increase for the foreseeable future.

Another example which makes a complete nonsense of pixel counts in the opposite direction is the Canon 5D. This was a mere 12mp if I recall, yet mine would yield superb huge prints from that low pixel count sensor. By all accounts the Nikon D700 in the mail to me is comparable, with even better low light performance. I bought that body fully aware that it was about to be obsoleted by the D800, widely rumored at 24-36 mp. I don’t need the movie mode and pixel count is meaningless to me. Only the results count.

Bottom line? Forget the pixels. Look at big prints.

And if you want real bragging rights, get the Nikon 800E which deletes the anti-aliasing (jaggie removal) filter. It’s extra, of course:

Nikon chutzpah. Charge more for less.

More seriously, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the D800E, with its sharper image, will sound the death knell of ridiculously priced medium format digital cameras and their massive lenses. Henceforth, billboards and Safeway delivery trucks will be decorated using massive enlargements from a four pound camera/lens combination costing less than one Hasselblad lens and you will be able to buy four or five such combinations for the price of one Hasselblad body. And as it says ‘Nikon’ on the faceplate, instant acceptance is accorded to the owner of the hardware, no excuses required. Assuming the snapper’s expertise is in subjects other than brick walls and test charts, that is.

Nikon FF lens selection

Nikon lenses

Keeping it simple.

Yesterday I mentioned that I had bought a Nikon D700 full frame body. The project I need this for, which will span an extended period, involves documentation of a large building site and its people. The environment will be dusty and dirty, hence the appeal of the D700’s dust sealed body.

As I want to keep it simple and because Full Frame gear is so heavy and bulky, I set to determining the optimal lenses for the project. There’s no need for anything very long, but the highest optical quality is essential given the need for large prints. I set the goal of keeping things down to just two lenses, which meant either a prime ultrawide plus a medium range zoom or an ultrawide zoom with a prime portrait lens. Long time pro-Nikon using friends were invaluable in slimming down the selection based on years of practical experience with the short listed optics.

My shortlist was as follows:

Option A – ultrawide prime plus mid-range zoom:

10 ounces. I had tremendous success using the (sadly discontinued) Canon 15mm full frame fisheye on my Canon 5D and ‘defishing’ the result in LR3 for an effective focal length of 12mm. Micro contrast was decent if not fabulous, and for what you got the lens was inexpensive. So the Nikon equivalent was a natural candidate for a prime ultrawide.

32 ounces. Everyone raves about this lens as one of the very best ever mid-range zooms. It is reputed to surpass primes for sharpness, but that performance comes at a tremendous weight penalty for the fast f/2.8 aperture, which does not drop at the long end.

24 ounces. An alternative mid-range zoom which adds length but trades it for a one stop slower f/4 aperture, while also shedding weight in the process. I don’t really need 120mm but the lens came highly recommended from Nikon users I know, and they have forgotten more about the marque than I will ever know. One big advantage is the inclusion of Vibration Reduction, missing from the 24-70mm optic. Incidentally, I owned the Canon 24-105mm L lens with my 5D and while it was optically fine, it was unusable. The lens has zero sealing or baffling so, when zoomed, it acts as a powerful air blower blasting dirt onto the 5D’s sensor. It’s so bad that you can remove the lens and feel the ‘whoosh’ of air when it’s zoomed. Once I stopped using it I no longer had to clean the 5D’s sensor after each outing. The 5D/II largely fixes that with a sensor dust removal system, but that body was not available at the time I was a 5D user.

Option B – ultrawide zoom plus prime portrait lens:

34 ounces. Another optic everyone loves, very wide and very heavy. I was troubled by the exposed front glass whose profile prevents use of a protective filter, but the optics are known to be as good as it gets. A miracle of optical engineering.

24 ounces. A lens almost as wide as the 14-24, lighter, has VR (likely not needed at these short focal lengths) but with known heavy barrel distortion at 16-17mm. I downloaded a specimen imaged from Photozone, loading it in LR3 where I found that correcting the barrel distortion was very easy. The extreme edges are not the greatest at f/4 and 16mm, but quickly improve by the time you get to f/8. Otherwise it’s a crackerjack optic and much lighter than the 14-24mm. At 18mm and full aperture the only extreme edge aberration is slight color fringing, easily corrected in LR3. Definition is to die for, requiring the merest hint of sharpening in post processing. Note that Photozone’s results are for the non-IF Mark I version. Mine is the IF Mark II; we’ll see if it’s better.

13 ounces. Once again, I had tremendous results with the similarly specified Canon on the 5D. This optic has been around for ever and has a tremendous reputation. This lens is discontinued, replaced by the new ‘G’ verison which deletes the aperture ring (not needed on the D700 in any case). The older lens is a known quantity and easily found lightly used.

23 ounces. The costlier f/1.4 variant is simply faster than I need and way too heavy to carry around.

The decision:

I went with a new 16-35 zoom, which comes with a four year Nikon USA warranty. Used examples sell for just 10-15% less and do not come with a warranty – a false economy. Like all Nikon’s pro zooms, the lens is dust sealed which is ideal for my contemplated use. The wide angle range meshes nicely with my way of seeing – I tend to see ’35mm and wider’. The lens does not change length when zoomed and the rear element is fixed, so that there’s none of that dust pumping action enjoyed by Canon 24-105mm L users. The lighter weight compared with the other shorter zooms is a significant point, also. Then I added a used 85mm f/1.8 ($339). It’s not dust sealed but, at that price, who cares? And the wide aperture is ideal for close-up portraits with blurred backgrounds, something the zooms here cannot offer. At f/2.2 the 85mm is near its peak performance.

Thus the total outfit weight is D700 – 35 ounces, 16-35mm – 24 ounces, 85mm – 13 ounces, for a total of 4.5 pounds. Well, it’s not MFT but that’s the penalty you pay for full frame quality. My Panny G3 with the Oly 9-18mm, and the Panny 14-45mm and 45-200mm lenses weighs in at just 3.0 pounds and that includes a really long 90-400mm zoom. Drop the zoom and the Panny kit comes to a scant 1 pound 12 ounces which is the fairer comparison, though there’s nothing to compare with the fast f/1.8 included in the Nikon outfit. So full frame means lugging an extra 2 pounds 12 ounces – the price of respectability!

Modern DSLR users are spoiled for choice, but the above reasoning, with help from friends, got me through the jungle.

Nikon buyers beware

Nikon bodies, Nikon lenses

The grey market is a mess.

I recently bought a Nikon full frame DSLR and some lenses. Last time it was Canon (the 5D, sold long ago, and excellent in every way) so this time I thought I would give Nikon a shot. I am brand agnostic. I elected the D700, shortly to be replaced by the D800, because it is affordable used, well built, dust sealed, there’s lots of lightly used inventory out there and because the pixel density and low light performance are ideal for my needs. Most importantly, it’s full frame which is what’s needed for true wide angle snaps with the best optics out there.

The Grey market racket:

But, being cautious by nature, it was not lost on me that Nikon products in the US are frequently sold as both “USA import” and “Grey market”, the latter a few dollars less. The greys circumvent Nikon USA as the importer, thus denying the business the profit it might otherwise earn. So what does Nikon USA do in its infinite stupidity? Why, try and cartelize the import racket by refusing either warranty or post warranty service to any grey market camera in the USA. And while there are instances of a lucky few managing to get service on their ‘greys’ it’s not like you want to take the risk of your megabuck D700 or D3/4 ending up as a brick because you have to send it to south central Mongolia for service, which will take a year if you ever get it back at all, covered in yak goo.

An example of split pricing – Grey and USA. No, the economics do not add up after shipping.

Further, the accountants at NUSA, really getting the pencil between their teeth now, have started refusing to sell parts to non-authorized dealers, arguing that special gear is needed to fix their fancy hardware. Mercedes tried that racket 25 years ago and lost a massive class action suit, which not only required them to sell parts but also dictated that the related diagnostic equipment be made available. It was nothing more than a crude land grab aimed at putting tens of thousands of independent repair places out of business.

Let’s hope Nikon is next to be sued. In one fell swoop NUSA has:

  • Upset any grey market buyer who cannot get his camera serviced. It’s not like he checked this out when saving his $50.
  • Made absolutely sure that the buyer will never return to Nikon products, destroying brand loyalty and repeat sales.
  • Generated abysmal word of mouth from every abused owner.
  • By refusing non-warranty service to grey owners, decided to pass on the income stream that results.
  • Remained completely clueless whether their childish attempts at price controls have any effect.

A basic principle of economics is that “All control drives up price” or, in NUSA’s case, destroys profits. This is what happens when you let accountants run a business.

Now given that I had decided to buy my D700 body used, it was clear that I would have to establish that it was a legitimate USA import. So I tried eight sellers on eFraud, each claiming his camera was bought at B&H NYC. Can I see the invoice please? No, I have lost it. Well, given that the camera is <4 years old and B&H keeps 5 years of invoices on line, could you please download yours and copy me? Silence. Eight out of eight. You wanna get cheated? Hasten over to the 'Bay.

The shutter activation lie:

The other bit of cheating the fraudsters there indulge in is the ‘shutter activation’ count lie. They reset the camera’s counter and claim that the number of the file indicates the count. Nonsense. So of each seller I asked for a current NEF (Nikon RAW) file. I would then upload this to MyShutterCount.com and get the true number. In all cases but one, the true count was far higher than the advertised one. No surprises there.

The one I bought had a count which exactly matched what the seller stated and it came with an original B&H NYC invoice. Easy. It’s not like I need the remaining count to be huge. I do not. But the last thing I want is a pro’s beater on its last legs.

The true shutter count on the used D700 I bought.

The quoted life of the D700’s shutter is 150,000 activations, so I’m not exactly going to trouble that ceiling.

An alternative to determine true shutter count:

You snap a JPG image and drop it onto Preview, dialing in the application as below:


Shutter count on the author’s 2005 Nikon D2x body.

The shutter count is disclosed in the highlighted row.

Stay safe:

If you are going to buy costly Nikon gear in the US, do yourself a favor. Forget saving $50 on grey imports. And when you get that purportedly USA import in your hands, check the serial number with Nikon to make sure your vendor has not tried to cheat you. Yes, it happens.

Finally, don’t buy on eBay. The odds against finding an honest seller are long and the gear will be marked up 7%, 3% for PayPal and 4% for eBay fees. I bought my used body at Fred Miranda which also happens to be where I sold all my Canon 5D gear. It’s largely the province of Nikon and Canon users, and I have only had good experiences as both seller and buyer.

Other brands:

I haven’t checked for other brands but if you are contemplating costly aquisitions of Canon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, etc. gear, you should do your due diligence before buying grey. The Japanese are not exactly known for original thinking, so it’s a fair bet to assume that other Japanese manufacturers are adopting similar policies.

* * * * *

For the many micro-four-thirds aficionados who visit here and enjoy the intimate style of street snapping that compact gear encourages, fear not. I have not gone to the dark side. Indeed, there could scarcely be a less appropriate camera to that sort of work than a full frame DSLR with a honker lens attached.

Colorize me

Photography

Debunking myths.

When Ted Turner set to colorizing sacred Hollywood movie classics, the experts rose up in arms. They conveniently overlooked two facts. First, those movies were made in monochrome for the simple reason that color film was either unavailable or too expensive. Second, people loved them in color. I recall watching many and have yet to think of one which was not better in color, though I do confess that maybe Carol Reed’s The Third Man might not gain from the exercise. No indication that Texas Ted got around to that one.

Let’s see, what was the last successful box office take for a black and white movie? Oh! yes, that would be Woody Allen’s Manhattan made in, ummm, 1979 …. yeah, black and white is really going to roll in the dollars.

So it’s with considerable joy that I came across the work of Swedish colorist Sanna Dullaway who has had the gall to colorize untouchable icons, not least Dorothea Lange’s migrant Nipomo mother:

The colorized picture is better in every way than the original.

Even that cultural icon, a picture which transcends its original photojournalism genre, becoming one of the great anti-war images of all time, is not spared her paintbox:

Again, the colored version is superior, heightening the sheer banality of the surroundings while the horrendous murder takes place, making the act that much worse.

My fond wish is that Ms. Dullaway sets her paints to work on the over processed oeuvre of that most overrated of American photographers, Ansel Adams. Now a pretty colored version of his crappy Yosemite snaps would finally grace the real estate it deserves. The top of a tin of cookies.