Category Archives: Photography

Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D AF lens

Nikon lenses

A decent walkabout optic.

The heart warming facts about Nikon’s AFD zoom optics is not only that many choices exist but also that many are insanely inexpensive in mint, used condition.

My mint copy of the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 ran me but $78 plus $7 to Amazon for a 62mm UV protective filter. I did not bother getting a lens hood as the one for this lens is huge and mostly useless.

The rational ‘walkabout’ comparison is the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 IF lens which adds internal focusing for a smoother feel and extends more at both ends. I have been using the 24-120mm on my Nikon F100 with Ektar film with considerable success. If there’s a complaint it’s the generous dollops of distortion, barrel at the wide end and pincushion at the long. This needs correcting in LR with architectural subjects, a pain but not hard to do.



At their widest settings. Note that the zoom rings work in opposite directions.


At the longest focal lengths.


So how does the 28-105mm differ? Bulk and weight are much the same, the zoom rings displays a tad more stiction owing to the traditional design, the optic is faster at the long end by one stop and adds a handy macro feature.

Here are test images – you can compare with those from the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 by clicking here.



At 28mm, f/3.5, center and edge.


At 28mm, f/8, center and edge.


At 50mm, f/4, center and edge.


At 50mm, f/8, center and edge.


At 105mm, f/4.5, center and edge.


At 105mm, f/8, center and edge.


In summary edge performance at the wide end is ghastly at full aperture; you need to stop down to f/8 to make it useable. The 24-120mm optic is far better in this regard. The edges from the 28-105mm get progressively better as the focal length increases. Whereas the 24-120mm lens shows chromatic aberration (easily fixed in LR) the 28-105mm has none. Not published here, distortion characteristics disclose that the 28-105 shows mild barrel distortion at 28mm, disappearing at 50mm or longer. That is much better than the 24-120 which barrels greatly at 24mm and pincushions north of 50mm. Neither optic does a particularly good job of rendering out-of-focus areas, both yielding results that are too ‘busy’ for my taste. The 28-105mm lens shows no light fall off at the edges at any aperture or focal length. I have found that the later lens correction profile in LR for the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 G VR optic (the one with no aperture ring) works well with this earlier AF D lens.

Handling of both optics on the D700 DSLR and F100 film SLR is excellent. They balance well, zoom rings lack any gritty feel, AF is as fast as you need for all but sports subjects and as I always use aperture priority with aperture control transferred to the lens, the aperture ring on the 28-105mm is easier to access as the lens is less steeply pyramided at that location, making the ring more accessible. Not a big deal in practice.

The macro range on the 28-105mm is accessed by setting the focal length between 50 and 105mm and focus between infinity and 0.5 feet. The switch on the barrel is flipped and you get a very handy macro lens with a focal length range of 50-105mm. The long focal length setting is especially handy as it allows better clearance between the front of the lens and the subject. This is the closest I could get at 105mm:




The magnification ratio computes to 1/4 life size.

Sharpness, even at f/4.5 in the macro range, is excellent – fully useable.

Conclusion: If you need 24mm (which is much wider than 28mm) and useable edge performance near full aperture at the wide end, the 24-120mm is the better choice. If you prefer a minimum of post-processing to remove distortion the 28-105mm is to be preferred. The construction quality and material choices (more plastic) of the 28-105mm are lower but hardly a deal breaker and the macro feature is both useable and the optics excellent. Weights of the two lenses with filters are 16oz for the 28-105mm and 20 oz for the 24-120mm.

It’s a nice choice to have to make with each lens selling for well under $100. I have both!

Apple discards the college business

Macintosh

Silly-priced new MacBook Air.

Apple just announced the new MacBook Air and it’s priced at an over-the-top $1200 for the base model with a 13.3″ display.

You will not be seeing this much more:

Yes, this silly-priced MacBook Air confirms that Apple is strictly in the Veblen Goods market, where a premium price is seen as attractive, a low one as a disincentive to conspicuous consumption.

Consider: Wireless ear bud speakers at $120. Cellphones starting at $800 + tax + annual service contracts. The Apple Pencil to draw on your iPad at $100. All commanding 50% profit margins because someone has to pay for that ridiculous over-the-top flying saucer HQ:


Hubris. The Apple HQ building in Cupertino.

I’m writing this on a 2010 Mac Pro tower. In its faultless 365/24/7 life it has had one upgrade of GPU, CPU, RAM and SSD storage. I expect it to continue to deliver fault free daily performance for another decade, at 70% of the speed of the latest throwaway machines. When parts fail – and they seldom do – they are easily replaced with a screwdriver or two and readily available. The chassis design dates from 2006.

My MacBook Air is the last 11″ 2015 model made. I would upgrade this $800 machine annually as, with associated tax benefits, the upgrades were free. Then the 11″ was discontinued never to appear again. It weighs just 2.38lbs and is a handy portable companion. At 11″ a costly ‘Retina Display’ would be money wasted. It’s the perfect traveling machine whether for college student or businessman. But you can no longer buy it new. So now the aspiring student will buy a Chromebook with comparable specs to the new MacBook Air for, what, $450?

In a decade Apple has abandoned its core constituency, the pro A/V market. It has abandoned college students and the impecunious. And now it sells ridiculously overpriced, glass-backed, fragile cell phones for $1000 and up.

Strange business model for the coming recession.

Strategy? Given that technology changes at the margin for desktops, laptops, tablets and cellphones are very slow, I’m increasingly focused on upgrading to 2-3 year old tech, as I did in moving from an iPhone6 to an iPhone7 for a modest $300 net a few weeks back. No $1000 cellphones for me. I get 80% of current performance for 30% of the cost. That solves.

Panasonic S1R FF SLR

Panasonic

Aimed solidly at the pro.

Panasonic announced the 47mp FF S1R mirrorless camera today along with the 24mp S1. As the inventor of the mirrorless, interchangeable lens camera with the G1 a decade ago Panny knows what it’s doing and the long line of successors to that revolutionary body has captured both the video and stills markets with aplomb.

An early partnership with Leica saw to it that some of the finest MFT lenses came with Panny mounts and the S1R continues that tradition using the Leica ‘L’ bayonet, shared with the very costly S2/S3 Leica bodies. While Leica FF lenses run $5,000 a pop, it’s always good having Leica on your side when it comes to optics for no one does it better than the magicians in Wetzlar, Germany.

Those great designs invariably migrate to cheaper Panny versions and, indeed, Panny has announced that there will be some 20 lenses available 24 months hence, both Leica and Panny designs. I have used both the amateur and pro grade Panny optics on their MFT bodies and can testify to the quality of the optics. As for modern Panny MFT bodies – I use two GX7s – nothing comes closer to the Leica M2 experience of my film days when it comes to a compact street snapper, and the total silence of the electronic shutter option makes the modern Panny MFT body the stealthiest camera made.

As for the feature set of the new full frame S1R/S1, Panny appears to have nailed it, including:

  • In body IBIS (missing from Canon’s new FF offering)
  • In lens IBIS
  • Dual storage card slots (missing from both the new Canon and Nikons)
  • 4K/60fps video – a first (only a crippled cropped mode available in the new Canon)
  • Top plate LED display – like in every other FF SLR with ‘pro’ aspirations
  • Three axis touchscreen rear LCD
  • Extensive weather sealing

It’s interesting to compare the feature set with those from Canon and Nikon. Both those powerhouses have offered variously crippled iterations on their top end DSLRs, reluctant to lose the cash flow from their cash cows. Yet only the meanest observer would deny that the flapping mirror DSLR is done and dusted, the greater simplicity of the mirrorless body and greater optical design flexibility owing to the much shorter flange-to-sensor distance being the future. By contrast, while Canon and Nikon must pay fealty to owners of current costly optics by ensuring compatibility, Panny has no such oath of loyalty to maintain as they have never had an FF offering. So they can start afresh, and doing so with Leica’s ‘L’ mount is a perfect way of hitting the ground running.

In addition to pairing with Leica on the lens front, Sigma has also got its nose in the picture, promising to offer lenses. Take that with a bushel of salt for Sigma has no design chops worth mentioning, always taking the easy way out with their gargantuan designs which destroy the very idea of a small camera/large picture. As for quality control, Sigma’s corridors have yet to be darkened by that concept as my truly miserable experience with their 35mm f/1.4 ‘Art’ lens disclosed. Sigma’s optical quality reputation is well deserved. Sure, you can get crackerjack Sigma lenses, but what is your time worth while you sift through all those returns? In fact, so bad is Sigma’s QC that they remain the only lens maker that offers an aftermarket gadget to allow you to program optimal AF because, sure as heck, the factory seems incapable of doing that. That dongle should come free with every Sigma optic.

Pricing? Well, the Nikon Z6/Z7 are priced at $2,000 and $3,400 so I would expect the S1/S1R to come in a few dollars higher, given the enhanced feature set. Availability is set for early 2019. Meanwhile, I would imagine that the $6,000 mirrorless Leica SL ‘L’ mount body with its modest 24mp sensor will henceforth only sell to those who like paying up an additional $4,000 for a two cent red paper dot which states ‘Leica’ in the middle.

Bartlett Lake, AZ

iPhone, Motorcycles, Photographs

In the Tonto National Forest.

Bartlett Lake is 35 miles northeast of Scottsdale and is deserted on weekdays. The ride through the high desert is lovely, and while the 20 mile approach road through the Forest has seen better days the gentle sweepers and absence of traffic make for a fine opener for the 9 month motorcycling season here, now that daytime highs have dropped to the low 90s.



No traffic in sight.


The map view in Lightroom.


The Last Stop is the only dining place at the lake. Usual burger fare.
Note the matching 1975 historic registration plate on my 1975 BMW R90/6,
now in my 29th year of ownership and a delight to ride.

Boat and JetSki rentals are available.


This was the first occasion on which I aired out the camera in my ‘new’ iPhone7. In contrast to the 8mp files from the excellent camera in the iPhone6, iPhone7 files are 12mp and what little grain there was in iP6 images has disappeared, the crazy azure skies have been tamed a bit (if not quite enough) and resolution is everything you would need for the largest of prints. An incredible technical accomplishment.

The miserable CEO of Apple, Tm Cook, a man devoid of original ideas, claims that one of the justifications for the crazy pricing of the latest iPhones is that you get a great camera thrown in. Well, there’s no question the camera is fine (albeit with the world’s worst ergonomics) but I’ll stick with a separate SLR when conditions get challenging. But for a day-to-day snapper the camera in the iP7 is exceptionally good.

The 2018 iPad

iPad

Same size but faster.

With consumer protection laws having been destroyed by the current Pig Administration – along with civility, discourse, integrity, diplomacy, science, education and the environment – it’s little wonder that Apple gets away with its multi-layered planned obsolescence strategy for its older devices. Leading the charge is iOS which magically makes all older phones and tablets from Cupertino suddenly behave as if they are slogging through frozen molasses.

That symptom had very much affected my 4 years old iPhone6 which I upgraded to a used 128 gB iPhone 7 for a modest $345 after selling the iPhone6. The speed gains from the A10 CPU in the iPhone7 are very significant indeed. Why, it now performs as fast as the iPhone6 did four years ago.

A like infection of molassesitis also affected my iPad Air which, believe it or not, is approaching its fifth anniversary and after daily hard use remains as good as new. Except for the speed, that is. It’s now awful.

So it’s off to the local Apple Hipster Store to be met by a 14 year old sporting colored hair and tattoos, passing as an Apple salesperson (gender unclear) to pick up a new 128gB 2018 iPad. The ‘Air’ moniker seems to have been dropped and the top priced models are, Apple assures us, ‘Pros’. Uh huh.

Here are the comparisons of the current models:

A glance at pricing is an eye opener. I’ll focus solely on wi-fi versions as anyone with an iPhone can simply tether the iPad to the phone’s cellular service and get cellular connectivity. No need to spend an additional $130 on cellular circuitry in your iPad, incurring additional monthly fees in the process.

The costliest iPad, the 12.9″ iPad Pro costs $1149, which strikes me as an awful lot of money. By contrast, the 9.7″ regular iPad, albeit with 128gB rather than 512gB of memory and a marginally slower A10 CPU (same as used in the iPhone7) is just $429. No prizes for guessing which one I chose. Buying used makes no sense here as few recent iPad models are available used. People hang on to these devices a long time. My old iPad Air will sell for $180, making the upgrade cost just $249. That works for me.

So if ever the word ‘bargain’ can be associated with Apple hardware, I do believe the 2018 iPad qualifies.

With a 9.7″ screen, the same size as in the original iPad Air, size is perfect for anything from book reading to stock analysis or movies. And it fits travel luggage just fine.

How do the CPUs compare? Geekbench data show the following:

The 163% CPU speed gain on single core operations (which dominate use) is comparable to the speed gain of the iPhone7 over the iPhone6.

One reason Apple’s iPad sales have been so weak is that the device is very long lived and very well made, retaining high resale value unlike your Android or Amazon Fire piece of junk. Further, Little Johnny in the classroom does not mind too much if he has to wait a few more seconds for his iPad schoolbook to open. His major upgrade reason is that he just dropped the device on the floor. The life expectancy is high even in LJ’s uncertain hands and his affluent folks are welcome to pony up an outrageous $99 for the Apple Pencil so that he can scribble away to his heart’s content. Until he loses it, that is.


Now that’s what you call a downward trend.

iPad sales have pretty much flat lined since 2014 when the original iPad Air hit the market. For far too long the device was overpriced and seriously lagging in hardware compared to its iPhone siblings. Now Apple seems to have woken up, slashed prices at the lower end (my iPad Air ran some $600 5 years ago – call it $700 in today’s money, and with just 64gB of memory) and brought the innards up to speed – a far better camera (though, really, only folks with plastic pocket protectors use an iPad for photography), a speedy CPU and lots more memory at non-gouge prices. Add the fingerprint sensor in the 2018 model I bought and you have iPhone-like speed and functionality.

Mercifully the 2018 iPad retains the coaxial headphone/earbud socket and dispenses with face recognition, the latter an idiotic technology and the ultimate solution looking for a problem. What on earth, pray Apple, is wrong with fingerprint recognition? How about redirecting some of those vast R&D monies wasted on face recognition on making Siri actually work? Or improving voice recognition?

Fingerprint recognition works fine on the 2018 iPad though the nice haptic feedback found in iPhone7 is sadly missing. The Home button on the iPad is still a mechanical micro switch, not a zero wear touch sensor. That said, after 5 years of daily use the Home button on my original iPad Air continues to work well. Also missing is ForceTouch, a nice iPhone7 feature Apple appears to be discontinuing (Hint: It’s called Margin Greed).

I’m looking forward to a happy 5 years with the new 2018 iPad, and to an Administration which will once more honor Consumer and Human rights. Meanwhile I console myself with the thought that the 2018 base iPad may actually be a bargain. And iOS 12, which I just installed, does not cripple performance. In fact, it works well.