Category Archives: Hardware

Stuff

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.

Fuji X-Pro1 and Canon G1X

Fuji

Overpriced.

The recent announcement by Fuji of its interchangeable lens APS-C X-Pro1 leaves me in two minds, but let’s get one thing out of the way. This camera is not a ‘Leica killer’. At a costly $2,400 with one lens it’s one quarter of the price of the Leica M9 and simply does not compete with it, any more than a Mercedes competes with a Rolls Royce. Sure, the features may be similar, the fit and finish identical and the looks attractive but one caters to the buyer thinking he’s getting some exclusivity for his money, the other caters to the buyer with more money than sense.

The clumsily named X-Pro1 with 28, 50 and 90mm FFE lenses.

What your $2,400 gets you here is a camera with one interchangeable lens and no zoom. That certainly harkens back to the Leica rangefinder idiom in the days when zooms were awful and Leica’s viewfinder didn’t know a zoom from a hole in the ground. And while the Fuji adds autofocus (still missing from the Leica M9 with its 60 year old manual range/viewfinder) and a zoom hybrid optical/electronic finder, the optical finder’s magnification of just 0.37x is simply ghastly. Even Leica managed 0.72x in most of its M bodies and around 0.9x in the M3 and certain later variants. 0.37x, if it is to be believed, is a joke.

For this camera to be a useful street snapper – and like the Leica M it’s ill suited to other genres – then responsiveness will be key. The APS-C fixed lens X100 has poor focus speed and high shutter lag by all accounts, whereas the much cheaper X10 cures those ills but blows it with a silly, fingernail-sized sensor, good for small prints only. Though a zoom lens is currently unavailable and may be coming, the clunky use of fixed focal length lenses for a street snapper, and the delay occasioned by the occasional need to change these, is simply an anachronism in a modern, fast paced world. Significantly absent from the design is any anti-shake technology. A big omission for the price asked and for the primary use intended.

The X-Pro1 retains the well executed automation settings from the X100 (and the much earlier Rollei 6000 series medium format film SLRs, one of which I happily used for years). For shutter priority set the aperture ring to ‘A’, for aperture priority set the shutter dial to ‘A’ and for program automation set both to ‘A’. And it’s nice to have simple rings and dials for these functions, in addition to the over/under exposure dial on the top plate.

Finally, the price of all this retro-think is ridiculous. If the M9’s $10,000 price tag is simply silly, the $2,400 asked for the X-Pro1 is exorbitant. The difference between silly and exorbitant is that a select few can afford silly and not care about it, but all others have to think twice about exorbitant, meaning three times the price of the competition. If you want to pay a $1,500 premium for the admittedly gorgeous looks, then have at it. For $700 you can have your choice of MFT bodies from Oly and Panny with a capable zoom kit lens and any number of decent offerings from Canon/Nikon/Sony in APS-C.

What is wanted by the street snapper is a camera with a modest zoom range – say 28-70mm – a decent aperture, maybe f/2.8, anti-shake, a fixed lens is fine, a hand operated zoom and a decent finder, optical or EVF, married to an MFT or APS-C sensor. Responsiveness is paramount. Canon sort of gets it with its new $800 G1X, but the zoom range is too long at 28-112mm, sacrificing speed in the process for a disappointing f/5.8 at the long end. Responsiveness is also currently unknown, the optical finder appears to be the same crappy one from the G9/10/11/12 series, though the body at least includes anti-shake and the sensor is almost APS-C sized. So that’s a lot closer to the street snapper’s demand for functionality than the dated approach of fixed focal length lenses, fast as they may be, adopted by Fuji on the X-Pro1.

The ‘almost right’ Canon G1X.

However, these are encouraging developments. If the Fuji enjoys robust sales, one of the mass manufacturers will likely get it right and produce a sub-$1000 fixed lens, big sensor, responsive snapper with a modest range fast zoom, the latter manually operated. Electric zooms simply don’t cut it in real life street situations. Goodness knows, we have been waiting long enough. Right now the street snapper chooses from:

  • Panasonic G3 or GH2. $630/900 with kit zoom. Traditional DSLR looks but with EVFs, MFT sensor, marginal ergonomics on the G3, decent lenses for the most part, attractively priced, very responsive, needless prism ‘hump’. Ugly as sin to look at.
  • The Olympus MFT range, all damned by the absence of a viewfinder other than the frightful clip-on EVF designs. Attractive looks.
  • Fuji X100. $1,200. No zoom, APS-C sensor, sluggish, overpriced. Gorgeous looks.
  • Fuji X10. $600. Nice fast zoom, responsive, attractively priced, very small sensor. Forget about cropping and large prints. Gorgeous looks.
  • Fuji X-Pro1. $2,400 with one lens. Zooms may become available later, APS-C sensor, unknown responsiveness, exorbitantly priced. Fixed focal length lenses only for now. Gorgeous looks.
  • Canon G1X. $800. Almost APS-C sized sensor. Unknown responsiveness, crappy optical finder, attractively priced, slowish zoom, no manual zoom ring. ‘Wouldn’t-kick-it-out-of-bed-for-eating-crackers’ looks.

So none of these gets it quite right, but it is very encouraging to see that makers are slowly ‘getting it’. Once manufacturers start realizing that fewer features on a better executed body are what the user wants, then the right camera will follow. And if it looks half as nice as the three Fuji models, it will be an object of desire in itself.

But while the new Fuji may make those who value looks over function happy as can be, it doesn’t seem to be the answer to the street snapper’s ideal. Close, but no cigar.

Lumin

iPhone

Ingenious.

The Lumin app for the iPhone allows the use of the phone’s camera as a magnifier, with or without illumination from the built-in LED. That’s incredibly clever, and I have found it ideal for determining serial numbers on hardware for insurance purposes. Such numbers are increasingly screen printed in very small fonts on equipment and the their falling size and my aging eyesight conspire doubly against me.

You can take a snap of the area imaged and email it to yourself with ease – here’s an example of the serial number on my Panny G3:

Other uses include looking at restaurant menus in poorly lit diners, spotting that wood splinter in your finger, examining your Border Terrier’s nose to try and determine just how it manages to stay frigid, and …. well, you get the idea.

There are many flashlight apps in the iPhone AppStore, but none that can compare to this. Try and buy an illuminated magnifier for $1.99 that fits in your vest pocket and doubles as a flashlight.