Monthly Archives: December 2011

Tilt/Shift

Posted on by
Reply

It annoys me when i see people writing about tilt shift to create images that appear as miniature models.

The term Tilt Shift refers to two types of lens movements to create two completely independent effects and shouldn’t be interchanged.

Tilting a lens adjusts the angle at which the plane of focus hits the film or sensor, thus increasing or reducing depth of field without changing the aperture size. This is especially useful for landscape photography where the aim is to get as much of the scene in focus as possible without introducing long shutter speeds or diffraction.

Large format photography has always had the ability to tilt as the lenses and film backs are always moved independently of each other, with a concertina bellows between them keeping the light out.

In 35mm photography it’s always necessitated a large and expensive lens to create these effects and so hasn’t been as accessible to the general user.

Shifting a lens is mostly used to correct perspective distortion in architectural photography. With a regular lens, when you tip a camera upwards to include as much of the building as you can, it appears to fall back away from the camera due to perspective. A shifted lens compensates for this. Again it is possible to do this on a large format camera with no special apparatus.

The problem I have is with people’s use of the terminology. The Internet seems to be awash with “Tilt shift” images, real or photoshopped, where the effect is actually only the result of a tilt.

Can we all just get it right now please?

It’s alive!

Posted on by
Reply

I bought a used Nikon FE recently for a mere £29. It had a “No guarantee” sticker and appeared to be faulty as it would only work on the 1/90 shutter speed and part of the prism, by the Nikon lettering, was out of line. Also, the light sealing inside the camera door had previously come away.

One new set of batteries and a new screw to fix the prism later and it was working ok. I’ve run a roll of Fujifilm Superia 200 through it and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The wind-on lever is a tiny bit loose but it doesn’t feel like it’s about to break or anything

The Nikon FE is ideal; it’s aperture priority, doesn’t get in your way and just lets you shoot. The meter is the best I’ve used, even more so than the F4 it seems, and I can see that it’ll get a lot of use.

In general use it’ll work best as a second body to my FM2Ns; the FE with a 50mm, 85mm or 135mm lens and an FM2N with a 24mm or 28mm. Wide angle on the FM2N for slower picture taking, i.e. to allow time to meter properly, and standard to telephoto for snapshots on the FE where I don’t have time to think about the shutter speed.

I’m intrigued to try the FE’s excellent meter against a roll of Fujifilm Velvia slide film as I’ve had nothing but trouble with it in the past.

Have you found a bargain that’s worked out to be one of the best camera buys you could have hoped for?

 

Photo of Nikon FE used under the Creative Commons licence. Original, taken by Mike Odoño, available here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingredienterb/3844439066/

The ultimate camera

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve already talked about the perfect lens and how it doesn’t exist.

Now I’ve been thinking about the perfect camera which only exists in my head but I think is worth sharing.

Body

The body would be an SLR as it’s my favourite form of camera. As much as I love rangefinders, TLRs, and mirror-less digital compacts, SLRs just make the most amount of sense to me. Having bought two of them, they’re that good, I would use the FM2 as the base.

Mount

Since I’m talking about a Nikon body, it would have to be the F
mount. I toyed with the idea of an interchangeable mount to allow the use of
Canon EF and FD, Nikon F, Pentax K, Olympus OM and, if possible, Leica M
lenses but although this is a fictional camera I just don’t think it would be
possible to do.

Light Capturing Medium

Sorry folks – it would be digital. I love it dearly but if I had this camera there would be no need for 35mm film ever again. The Leica M9 uses a Kodak 36x24mm, 18 megapixel sensor and I would use the same specs but get Sony to make it, considering the excellent job they did of the Nikon D700 and Pentax K7 sensors. Additionally I would refrain from including an anti-aliasing filter on the sensor. They’re only useful for preventing moiré patterns and you lose some sharpness in the process.

Lenses

I’ve said above that I would have a Nikon F mount, so basically it would be compatible with virtually every Nikon lens ever made. That means non-AI, AI, AI-S, AI-P, AF-I, AF, AF-D, AF-S and even those odd ones that require mirror lock up.

Nikon made the leap to lenses with no aperture ring in the late ’90s/early ’00s and if this ultimate camera were to be just that, it couldn’t possibly restrict the use of G series (i.e. no aperture ring) lenses. Therefore I would add a control wheel on the back where your thumb would usually rest that allowed the changing of the aperture. A simple readout in the viewfinder would indicate the selected aperture.

All lenses attached regardless of features would operate as manual focus. Auto
focus requires too many extra electronics and if not using AF-S or AF-I would also necessitate a built-in screw focusing motor.

Sensitivity

Since I love long exposures in daylight and handheld photography in low-light, I would set the base ISO at 25 and the upper limit to 6400. There would be no gimmicks to increase the ISO above 6400 into the HI-1 or HI-2 range. The ISO settings would be changed by a control wheel where the current film winder handle is on the FM2.

Shooting Modes

The camera would work in the same way as the Nikon FE does. Set the shutter speed dial to AUTO and it works as aperture priority. Otherwise it’s manual. I don’t need or want shutter speed priority.

Viewfinder

The viewfinder would show 100% of the field of view with no unnecessary magnification. I would use a bright focusing screen configured for a maximum aperture of f/1.2. The surround of the viewfinder would display the aperture, the shutter speed, the ISO and a meter needle similar to that of the Nikon FE but lit up for night work.

Screen and Controls

I would use a 2 or 3-inch OLED screen depending on how well it would fit into the FM2 type body. On the back would be four buttons laid out vertically along the left hand side, for the menu, 
reviewing and deleting photos, and for white balance. This is
 the only setting I would have that uses the screen to alter. Whereas the 
aperture, shutter speed and ISO settings are all physically on the body, I 
find white balance is the thing I set the least on my digital cameras.

On the right hand side of the camera I would have a five-way button layout 
similar to the Panasonic G1, where there is a set/ok button surrounded by
 four directional buttons. On the Panasonic each one of these also acts as 
a way of changing a setting when not in the menu, but since everything is set 
physically on the lens or the ISO and shutter speed dials there would be no 
need to add extra features to these buttons.

Memory

As this would be a digital camera, there has to be scope for storage of 
the digital media. I considered a solid state hard drive of 64 or 128GB but I
 think SD cards are the way to go. The iPad has a camera
 connection kit to allow SD cards to be plugged in – it would be great to shoot on this type of camera and then review, edit and share photos using the iPad.

I would have dual SD card slots on the underside of the camera next to the 
li-ion battery, under a removeable plate. Some modern DSLRs can use two cards, 
one for raw images and the other for JPEGs or one as a backup. I would use one card as a backup to the other and only shoot JPEG.

Picture Controls

These are massively important if the camera is going to
 output JPEGs. Virtually all DSLRs have some form of picture style control but
 rather than have a selection of modes with “Natural”, “Smooth”, “Vibrant” and
 Dynamic”, for example, I would include real life films as templates. I love
 the idea of being able to select “Fuji Velvia 50″ with one shot and
 “Ilford Delta 3200″ with the next. The ISO rating of the camera could be 
set automatically to allow the same sensitivity which could then be over-ridden 
by setting the ISO control dial.

Flash

The camera would have a hot shoe but only configured to fire a flash
gun that’s mounted, i.e. using the center pin. I would want no i-TTL flash
 metering, certainly no pop-up flash, but would have a PC sync socket for 
PocketWizards etc. I know this makes it more complicated, but by having i-TTL 
you have to include menu items or buttons for flash exposure compensation, 
rear curtain/red eye reduction/slow sync modes, flash shutter speeds and the 
like.

Menu

The menu would be kept incredibly simple:

  • Date and time
  • SD card format
  • Picture control selection
  • File format selection
  • Noise reduction toggle

These are all I could think of, though there are probably one or two others
that should be added.

Misc

To round things off, I would have no live view and no USB port. There’s no 
need to have either as live view just drains a battery and a USB port requires 
unnecessary extra electronics and a port on the side of the camera. Don’t 
people have card readers anymore?

Finally I would love the option to limit the camera to 36 exposures with a set 
picture control, i.e. film style, to make it feel like a film camera. After 
the 36th exposure it would reset and allow the film style to be changed.

So there we have it. I would set a price of £1,000 (and since it’s my camera I
would have one for free!) and make millions.

The death of the DSLR

Posted on by
Reply

Well not quite, but we’re not a million miles from it. It’s only a matter of time.

In the early days of digital SLRs they weren’t targeted, let alone priced, at the consumer market and if you wanted digital it would have been a compact of some sort. Canon’s 300D (Digital Rebel in the US) was the first sub-$1000 DSLR and set about a shift in the market, where suddenly your average Joe could just about afford a digital SLR.

Since then all manner of DSLRs have been made available for as little as £300-400 new. Of the traditional camera companies, Nikon, Pentax, and Olympus joined Canon in marketing quality and affordable DSLRs for the consumer and were soon joined by other electronics companies such as Samsung (in partnership with Pentax) and Sony (using the Minolta SLR framework).

Compact cameras have been nowhere near the usability or quality of DSLRs primarily due to the poor quality of small sensors. However, Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung, Sony, Pentax and even Nikon have all released mirror-less interchangeable lens camera systems to challenge the status quo. Panasonic and Olympus have become champions of the Micro Four Thirds system whilst Samsung and Sony have stepped sideways and produced a hybrid of a hybrid. Their NX and NEX systems, respectively, have no mirrors/prisms but retain an APS-C sensor and use lenses smaller than that of their full size DSLR counterparts.

Micro Four Thirds (aka M4/3) took the industry by storm and their cameras sold very well. Panasonic have three tiers of M4/3 bodies whilst Olympus have many variations of their original EP-1, which all appear to be very similar. (I have to admit to not being a fan of Olympus aside of their Trip 35).

The beauty of the mirror-less system is that the lenses are smaller than on full size DSLRs, there is no mirror or prism to bulk out the camera body and since the flange distance (between the sensor and the mount) is a lot shorter than other systems, all manner of adapters are available to use virtually any lens.

All of a sudden people who would have stepped up from a compact to a DSLR are not jumping so far and are grabbing small interchangeable lens systems with both hands. Incredibly there are even those who are trading in their top of the range DSLR systems for smaller mirror-less cameras. Prior to the introduction of the M9, Leica fans were picking up mirror-less cameras and using their Leica lenses as a cheap way to go digital with M-mount lenses without paying over the odds for an M8.

Mirror-less camera systems look like they are the future. Most are reasonably priced, they all allow for the use of third-party lenses of all ages and types and they are the perfect ‘bridge’ between DSLRs and compacts.

My hope is that whether DSLRs or Compact System Cameras end up as the most popular choice, photographers are sure of what they actually need and not what they think they want. The financial pain of buying what you ‘want’ and then switching to what you actually need lasts a long time.

If I could go back to August 2008, I would have bought a Nikon FM3a, a Nikon
50mm f/1.2 AI lens and a bucket load of film.

Don’t do what I did.

Holy Trinity

Posted on by
Reply

Three is the magic number, so they say. Perhaps that’s a little optimistic for the mobile network or the BBC channel, but nonetheless it’s supposed to be a powerful number.

Numerology aside, the holy trinity in the world of Nikon is in reference to owning three of the ultimates in lenses. For anyone unfamiliar with these they are the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G AF-S, the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G AF-S and the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S.

At over a grand each it makes for a light wallet once you’ve bought a suitable body too. Since these are designed for FX you’d also be looking at forking out a couple of grand on a D700, D3, D3S or D3X (which is a bit more than a couple of grand).

The general idea with these three lenses is that you can cover 14mm to 200mm with only three lenses. If you were to use primes to cover a similar range you would need something like the following:

  • Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 AF
  • Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G AF-S
  • Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G AF-S
  • Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G AF-S
  • Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G AF-S
  • Nikkor 135mm f/2 AF DC
  • Nikkor 200mm f/2G AF-S VR

Of these seven lenses, six are faster than their trinity brothers but five are without aperture rings. Important only if you’re using film and a body earlier than an F5 (or thereabouts).

So the principal is that you buy all three zooms and have the best possible range to capture any manner of photograph you could imagine. That sounds wonderful and I can completely understand why a pap might need that sort of range/quality/few lens combination. For the rest of us it’s nothing but big, cumbersome, heavy zoom lenses.

There are alternatives, however. Lets have a look in more detail:

Wide angle

There’s really nothing that comes close to the 14-24mm for top-quality wide angle, even
with primes, but if you’re not fussed about f/2.8 or 20mm is wide enough for
you then there are other lenses available. If you can afford a 13mm f/5.6 then why are you even reading this?

I used to use a Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM for wide angle as it’s the widest silent focusing rectilinear zoom lens available. When set at 12mm you get a massive field of view that’s really quite difficult to use effectively. The downside to the Sigma is that the quality is not so good and it’s a stop and a third slower than the Nikkor.

Standard

This focal range, 35 to 70, is fairly ‘boring’ compared to the extreme wide
angles of the 12-24 and 14-24 and the telephoto focal lengths I’ll cover in a
moment. Mostly because images are not extreme like a 12mm or 600mm.

The Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G AF-S provides exceptionally high quality images but it cannot be ignored that the focal length range is unexciting.

Let’s look at the focal lengths covered by the lens:

  • 24mm – You will have this in the Sigma, above, or in a prime lens.
  • 28mm – Not a huge amount of difference to 24mm.
  • 35mm – A nice standard focal length though 42mm is closer to a true standard.
  • 50mm – If you need this focal length then avoid a zoom. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G
    AF-S is an awesome lens and is the best standard lens for a Nikon.
  • 70mm – If you have a telephoto zoom, you will have this focal length already. Otherwise the nearest alternative is an 85mm.

Telephoto

I would always recommend a zoom when it comes to buying a telephoto lens. This is because if you are photographing something close with a wide angle, you will probably always get it in the frame. If you then want to shoot something far away you can switch to a telephoto and/or move closer. With a telephoto prime you have to hope that your subject doesn’t get so close that you can’t focus or that your composition suffers.

At least with a telephoto zoom you have the option of pulling out to 70 or 80mm, which aren’t much longer than 50mm.

In summary I would recommend the following alternative:

  • Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM
  • Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G AF-S
  • Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR
Alternatively just get the 50mm and you’ll be happy enough with that, I promise!

Why can’t I shoot in the middle of the day?

Posted on by
Reply

I can, but it’s often seen as wrong in the ‘professional’ world and in critique sections of most photography magazines.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with shooting Southwold Pier at noon, with a high sun and harsh shadows if that’s the look you want and it works well.

All you ever see in photography publications is ‘If you’d taken it just a couple of hours later then you would have caught the evening light and it would have looked much better.’

So are they saying it’s a rubbish photo or are they just telling us what THEY would prefer? There is a difference.

You may think that my dislike of these comments is the result of criticism received from a magazine. I’ve never submitted a photo to a magazine simply because photography is very personal to me and don’t feel a need to share it.

The only explanation I can think of for oft-undue criticism is that taking a picture in the middle of the day is easy – thousands of tourists will do it day in, day out – but shooting outside the ‘norm’ somehow elitiscises those that say dawn/dusk is best.

I recently took a series of shots on and around Brighton beach during the day in glorious weather. The sun was high in the sky and shadows were fairly harsh. That didn’t stop me. I opened the aperture up to f/2.8, 2.2 and even 1.6 and got some unusual beach scenes. You might think I’m crazy shooting at ISO 100, f/1.6, 1/8000s but it made for great photos that you couldn’t get
without using such a wide aperture.

If I submitted these to a magazine I suspect I’d get criticism for shooting the wrong subject at the wrong time of day and with the wrong aperture.

Maybe it’d be worth doing anyway…

The perfect lens…

Posted on by
Reply

…doesn’t exist. There is a way to determine which is the best lens available to you that I like to call the Pyramid Theory. Essentially it works in a similar way to calculating speed, distance and time, or at least the way I learned it at school.

To calculate the speed of, say, a moving vehicle, you need to know the distance it has travelled in a given time then do a calculation. We always used a pyramid with D at the top, S on the bottom left and T on the bottom right. This way you would be able to remember which variables you needed to do the calculation. For this you would always need two of the variables to get the third.

The three main ideals for the perfect lens, of any mount, focal length or age, is for it to be fast, cheap and high quality. Whereas with the maths analogy above you need two variables to get the third, with this you can only have two variables and the third cannot apply.

For example, the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G AF-S IF-ED, announced in 2007 with the launch of the D3 and the D300, retails at around £1,000. The build and optical quality is excellent, it is a fast lens at f/2.8 through the focal length range but it’s not cheap.

The Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR is a great lens and gives a photographer that extra reach over a 70-200 or 80-200 that is lost on FX bodies. It is fairly cheap, at around a third of the price of the 70-200 f/2.8, has very good build quality but it’s a slow lens.

I could play this game all day long and would struggle to find a lens that matches all three points in the equation. The main thing to learn from this is that when you are looking for your next purchase and can’t find that perfect lens, you must be prepared to dig deeper into your wallet, accept lower quality or avoid the fast f/2.8 lenses.

Unfortunately the disappointment in the search for the perfect lens doesn’t end there. Pick up something like the 24-70, after you’ve found that extra £700 you forgot you had, and you’ll notice that the other sacrifice you have to make is for a lightweight camera system/bag. Fast glass doesn’t come cheap, but it’s also damn heavy!

Happy shopping, folks!