Thinking Out Of the Box Camera Design

Don`t suppose any camera manufacturers are listening, but how about the following:

1) switch to 3:4 ratio image from the current 3X2 - after all this is what has happened in medium format and micro four thirds - if you kept to the same image circle - no problems with current lenses.

2) how about a rotating sensor - surely they can find a way to align it perfectly after turning it 90 degrees - this whole business of turning a camera on its end is just rediculous. It`s faster and safer and simpler for controls to rotate the sensor - sure you`d need a bigger pentaprism (if you stick with that), but 4X4 isn`t much bigger than 4X3 and even 3X3 vs. 3X2is only 33% more.

3) how about solving the expose to the right problem - why should I guess from a tiny screen whether I have overdone the highlights - couldn`t the camera check just how much brighter the highlights are (ie. hopeless or not) and just how big they are and couldn`t I specify how large an area I`m willing to let go pure white in a given photograph - and can`t we assume using raw and have the lcd show the clipping for raw that isn`t retrievable - perhaps flashing highlights in one of three colours depending on whether one, two or three channels are clipped. Surely the technology is there to help us (but not replace us).

4) would it be so difficult to put an infrared receptor on the back of the camera so I can use a simple, small cordless remote - after all point and shoots have had it for years - come on guys!

5) I suspect we are going to see  more and more focus blending in the future so how about making it easier - with automatic multiple images with appropriate focus change between each, based on the near distance and far distance desired, and the f stop. You could even time the exposures based on hand holding (asap) or tripod (how long does it take for vibrations to dampen at a given focal length).

6) how about getting the lcd image to my iPhone or even better iPad simply, painlessly and accurately, no wires, no router. It can be done now with accessories like eyefi but what about building it in?

7) is there really no way to keep noses from LCD screens?
Are we really stuck with the same overall design of slr's present since the 50's? - I loved the tilting viewfinder (not LCD on my Sony 707

8) from using the viewfinder on a Sony Nex-7, are we not ready for electronic viewfinders? Already they are better in low and medium light - we just need to fix the daylight problem - dynamic range, colour etc.  - but we need fast refresh and short blackout times for this to work.

Anyway, just my daydreams. Michael Reichmann has been beating the drum for a mirror lock up button on Canon cameras for at least 7 years and still no action - guess they are waiting for when there are no mirrors in any cameras.

Flowers

Pansies photographed with the Lensbaby Composer, with a short extension tube.

Lily with the Lensbaby

And lastly the original Pansy with my 90 TS-E

Why So Many Pixels?

One reason for wanting to start with as many pixels as possible is that every time we manipulate the image, we lose a little quality - resize up or down, get rid of barrel or pin cushion distortion, blend images for depth of field, or stitching, or correct perspective distortion and each of those steps degrades the image a little. This all on top of the original raw file conversion and any manipulation the camera does to raw images - raw isn't always as virginal as one might think as the manufacturer does some noise reduction or some sharpening before you get to play with it.

All these changes do add up. If I sharpen an image, I'm playing with the data and losing just a tad of resolution to gain in sharpness. Run my image through Akvis Enhancer or any other programme that adds local contrast or helps shadows and highlights and even more loss.

Dodging and Burning further damage the image - which is why this is the last thing I do. Even all those fancy blending layers and adjustments distort the data even if they don't destroy it.

And all this doesn't even consider cropping. 

Personally, I'll be happy to be have a camera with 36 or more megapixels.

Nikon D800E

No sign of mine arriving yet. Have been studying the various sites and lens tests to see what lenses I should use. Am going to try some of my 645 lenses first to see if any of them hold up.

In the mean time, today DPReview published an update on the D800E. I didn't find anything all that radical, but in the sample pictures section on the 800E, there are a variety of images. I looked at several made with the 70-200 and thought them quite good and was reassured that the corners seemed adequate if not perfect.

I then checked out the image with the boilers on the left, the sea in the middle and a city in the background, with fence and grass in the foreground, shot with the 85 1.4 G, a lens everyone agrees is stellar. Image here.

Wow, now this is what I was hoping for. From 18 inches away, I can't tell this is 100% view, but unlike "sharp" images of the past, there is no evidence of sharpening, even when I move in close to the monitor. Incredible detail and resolution as well as sharpness. And remarkably little moire in all those buildings and roofs - the only sig. spot I saw was between two sections of boat shed.

Digilloyd (pay site) has some interesting comments on focus shift as you stop down with some fast wide angle lenses, and the 14-24 - enough to make focusing stopped down the preferred method - if you can do it.

The D800/E would appear to have some live view focusing issues so I won't know how practical this is until I try it for myself.

Last Iteration

Iterations

As you know from  yesterday's post, I was photographing a rose. A dead one at that. It had been handed out at Indigo, by the store?, for no obvious reason, no strings attached, and it sat on our dining room table until well past it's best before date.

I happened to be reading the Sunday paper and noticed that the nearby window light was falling nicely on the flower - soft but directional - and that the rose might be worth photographing despite it's dried up appearance.

I started with my 90 ts-e lens but couldn't get close enough. I pulled the extension tube off my Lensbaby but that wasn't enough, so went in search of a longer one, and made some images. I then added the smaller tube and moved in a little closer.

Throughout this experimentation I made shots, and every 4 - 8 shots, I'd whip out the card and load the images into the computer to see what could be done with them.

I played with the height of the tripod to look down on the flower more, I rotated the vase while checking live view for the best view. I fiddled with the tilt on both the 90 and the Lensbaby and even experimented with f-stops on the 90 (though wide was best). Four times I made the trip to the computer and each time I learned from my experience and went right back to the rose to have another go.

This business of reassessing the subject and refining the composition and technique was fun and useful, informative and inspiring (to try and improve on the current best shot).

We don't often get such an opportunity to refine a photograph. We are away from the computer, the light is changing too fast, the LCD too small, or we are simply too impatient to move on to the next possible subject matter.

In the real world we can't 'grab the vase and rotate', and we can't bring up the images on 20 - 30 inch monitors to see what really looks best.

That said, we can learn from this experience. How often do we quickly assess the best position to stand, let the tripod choose the height from which to photograph (or simply standing height if we aren't using one) . We take the light we have instead of considering whether it wouldn't be better at a different time, and we don't give enough thought to whether we should attempt sharpness throughout, or a limited focus plane.

I would guess I spend almost three hours with that rose, going back and forth. I have to wonder how many of the subjects I photograph would have made better images had I spent a similar amount of time, refining and considering;  reviewing and re-envisioning.

Dry Rose

To my surprise, these wouldn't print on enhanced matte - out of gamut - and confirmed by printspace proofing. I switched papers to Harman FBAL gloss and had no troubles. Camera was Canon 5D2, lens was lensbaby Composer, wide open, with about one inch of extension tube to get close.

Liveview was invaluable. However did I manage before it came along?

3D->2D->3D->2D

Photograph some bushes, make a print, tear the print and bend it, then lay it out, and photograph it again.


Goofy?

Sure!

Fun?

Darn Right!

The paper was Ultra Premium Epson Matte (ie. the old enhanced matte) and it tore beautifully.

Apples And Oranges

I have been following with great interest the differences between the Nikon D800 and 800e and every few days more information and or examples come out. There are some things that can be said about any comparison of photographic equipment:

1) it's never as easy as you think

and

2) there are many factors which will result in a less than helpful comparision - ie. apples and oranges.

For example:

Imaging Resource just posted the 800e studio image - so a chance to compare cameras with identical images, same lens, steady lighting, tripod etc. The 800e did not show a huge advantage.  Other 'identical' comparisons had shown a bigger difference. It's essential to consider whether the image is a jpeg straight from the camera or a jpeg that came from the raw file. We also need to consider the lens used. In the case of the Imaging resource comparison, it's the 24-70 mm. Nikon lens - good for a zoom but definitely not up to a good prime lens, even the relatively inexpensive nikon 1.4 G, and certainly not the chart leading Nikon 85 1.4 G.

Today, digilloyd (for a fee) has tested sharpening to see what level of sharpening could possibly result in an 800 image looking just like an 800e image.

at GetDPI.com the Nikon forum has a lively discussion going on whether with extra sharpening the 800 images will look (and especially print) just like the 800E images.

For what it's worth, here's my observations after looking at and printing images:

You can only see the difference between the 800 and 800E if you start with a really good lens, optimal aperture and perfect technique - once you have to sharpen the 800E image significantly, it's hard to differentiate from an even more sharpened 800 image.

In prints 20X30 from a top lens I can see a difference between the 800 and 800E - but I doubt that the public could. At prints 49 inches wide (200% or 150 dpi) I think anyone could see the difference, but it's not huge even then - just less sharpening artifact.

Bottom line - you have to look for the diff. in the E, but with good glass and big prints, it is there.

To generalize to other comparisons:

minor change in the position of the sun (especially if it is glancing the subject) can affect apparent resolution and microcontrast and negate any camera differences. Less than stellar lenses won't show subtle differences in pixel count or presence/absence of an AA filter. Where the image is focusesd can make a giant difference - even minor variations can negate an otherwise useful comparison. Curvature of field can really screw up assessments. A number of lenses, many fast lenses and some others (like the 14-24 nikon) have sig. focus shift as you stop down. If focus was obtained wide open, even by live view magnified there can be errors creeping in.  As for auto focus - well there are complaints all over the net about difficulties focusing with the latest cameras. Those who shoot for pictures seem happy, those who shoot for tests not - which should tell us something. Again, focus curvature may have a lot to do with the apparent errors seen with lat. focus spots.

Mt. Kidd

Nothing original, I just like photographing this mountain any time I see it.

Rockface Kananaskis

Shot today in Kananaskis country, a 3 image stitch, made with the 5D2, 70-200 L IS f4 lens.

Website UP!

my new website is up and running, georgebarr.com and the photographs loaded. I note some duplications and I need to start working on image descriptions but you can inspect the site and let me know what you think. I have not yet moved the blog over yet(as you can see).

George

Website

You may notice that the website has changed drastically and isn't complete. I finally broke down and paid for a new website to be set up and only now are they loading all the images. I'll be moving my blog over to the new site too once all the bugs are worked out but the new site should be cleaner, the images bigger and hopefully I'll do a better job keeping the content current.

I'll post on the blog here once the new system is fully functional.

Focal Lengths I Use

As part of looking for suitable lenses for a D800e, I decided to do a little survey of my recent good images and what lens and focal length was used to make them.

35 were made with the 70-200, at all manner of focal lengths, though 11 were used for stitching purposes and might have been shot in a single image with a wider focal length and possibly a wider lens altogether (though I'd guess prob. still the 70-200 since much of the stitching is done at 150 mm +.

14 were done between 24 and 70 mm., most at the 24 or close, the longest at 58 mm. and the next longest 40 mm. - rather suggesting the top half of the lens is surplus to requirements.

7 were  made at 17-24 mm. with most at 17 mm. suggesting a fixed focal length lens would serve well here.

I would interpret this as suggesting:

1) I need a 70-200 - that using an 85, 100, 135 and 200 would be awkward, slow, and still have significant gaps (135-200). The Nikon 70-200 isn't as good as the new Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, but is close, and as good as my 70-200 f4 L IS which serves me very well.

2) I probably don't need zooms at the wider end - something in the 15-18 mm. or the 14-24, then 35 mm. , 50 mm. Only three images were made at focal lengths > 24 mm. and less than or equal to 40 mm. which even sugg. I might reasonably skip the 35 mm. lens and go from 50 to 24 and onto 15 mm.

3) I'm surprised at how many images I'd hate to lose were made at 17 mm. and could probably have been made at even wider without difficulty - it may be the third most common focal length, but still definitely needs to be represented.

Your figures are almost certain to be different as this very much depends on the kind of photography you do, not just subject but the seeing and composing as well. None the less, you might find it helpful to do this analysis to see where you need to beef up your coverage, or how to plan for a new system, in whatever format.

Lenswork Monographs

I recently received my first Lenswork Monograph Made Of Steel. First let me comment on the idea and execution of monographs, and then this particular volume.

I had felt a larger size would be nice but in fact when the book arrived, I felt it was just the right size. Quality of the printing is as usual superb. The only thing missing is an option to subscribe to the whole series as I'm sure to want every one of them. I have some reservations about doing an entire book about a single project. My preference would be to lean towards retrospectives of a photographers best work which might well include several projects or genres. I guess it depends on whether you think the subject or the image is paramount. I'm quite sure that others won't feel the same and that's just fine.

That Brooks Jensen is able to produce these monographs as inexpensively by tagging them on to the print run for Lenswork itself is brilliant and Brooks is to be congratulated on a wonderful idea.

I have seen and enjoyed many of the images from Made Of Steel before, from Lenswork and especially from Brooks website but it is a delight to see this as a single publication. Many of the portraits are remarkable. Some of the tool photographs are fine artisitic images while others are more illustrative. That said, as a statement about a disappearing part of modern society, this is an important book and gives a great insight into the places and the people, fast fading from the modern landscape.

I`ll be signing up for the whole series.

Lens Tests

I have placed an order for a Nikon D800e and that raises the question of what lenses to use and where to go for information. I know the quality of what I have (17-40, 24-70, 50 macro, 90 tse, 70-200 and rarely used 300.

My go-to sites for information are:

1) the-digital-picture.com - i find the ISO target images the most useful in understanding about resolution, especially as he has retested most lenses with the Canon 1Ds3 and Nikon D3x so we can make some reasonable predictions about the D800(e).

2) SLRGear.com - I don't think we can say much about function on a 36 megapixel camera when testing with a 12 so some of the older tests are of less value (yet a bad lens will remain bad - only worse).

3) DPReview.com - good testing but very limited selection, and again consider the camera with which the testing was done.

4) photozone.de - helpful but they specifically say you can't compare diff. systems - even within one brand.

5) digilloyd.com - not formal lens testing with numbers and graphs but practical testing and comparisons. Yes, you have to pay for access, but paying $100 or so if you are purchasing a $3000 camera and perhaps as much as $7,000 in lenses, information well worth having.

What have my investigations so far shown me? The following are my impressions and remember I have not done any personal testing, not yet having the camera.

Well, the Zeiss 15 is stellar and significantly better in the far corners than the already very good Nikon 14-24 - but at $3000, and as I'm not your typical landscape photographer concentrating on near far compositions - it may not be sensible.

The Nikon 24-70 has a good rep but looking at the images I'm not overly impressed, especially at the 24 end. The Nikon 24 f1.4 G is terrific and as good or better than the Zeiss, and cheaper, faster, and auto focus.

The Nikon 35 1.4 is also terrific, and better than the f2 lens at the apertures I use - f8 and f11.

The Nikon 50 1.4 g tests very well but oddly doesn't seem to have a great reputation - barring evidence to the contrary, it will be part of my collection.

I wish there were more information on the 70-200 on either the D3x or the D800 but it looks to hold up well enough - near perfect at 70-100 and decent if not exceptional  in the corners the rest of the way. As this focal length is by far my most frequently used  lens, and as generally with longer lenses there is less opportunity to move forward or back to frame, I think I will have to at least give it a go. I wish Nikon made a high quality f4 lens for less weight ...

As to the D800 itself and the whole business of switching cameras - I was prepared to spend the money on the Pentax 645D - here I can spend about the same for camera and lenses and gain live view, image stabilization, and more flexibility.  If I find that Canon releases an even better camera within the year, I'm sure my D800e will not depreciate too badly and the lenses can be sold, or adapted for use on the Canon if need be.

Some argue that 36 megapixels isn't really a lot more than 21 since the linear increase in print size possible is the square root of the increase in pixels (about 31%) but that's the difference between 20X30 and 30X40 and for me that's important and may even pay for itself.

Quick Visit To Vancouver

From Stanley Park, Vancouver, B.C. Three images, blended, shot with the 70-200 f4 IS L lens on my 5D2, images blended in Helicon Focus. I'd found the tree the previous morning but despite waiting for clouds, never did get the really soft lighting I wanted, so came back at sunset and now the only problem was the light was failing fast. The tree is an ancient cedar, about 10 feet across at the base and this bole reached about 10 feet high.

And since I literally had to walk across the bridge over the road to get back to my car, it just seemed sensible to stop and photograph the Lions Gate Bridge. F16 @30 seconds.

Pixel Peeping and Hammer Hammering

O.K., I admit it, I've been checking out all the stuff on the new Nikon D800, and in perusing lots of user forums, mostly getting pretty useless information, I came across the following.  If you have peeked at camera forums, you have to check this out.

Hammerforum at Lensrental.com

Priceless. Wicked. Accurate.

More With Lensbaby and Extension Tube

The out of focus chraracteristics of this combination are wonderful, definitely something I'm going to keep working with.

Plane Of Focus

I really haven't made much use of my Lensbaby Composer, but did wonder what it would be like for close up work. I do have a set of the close up lenses they sell. These sit in front of the lens and basically act as a magnifying glass which does two things - it shortens the focal length and allows you to focus closer.

I wasn't entirely happy with the results so I dug out my cheapy third party extension tubes and with the shortest on the camera and the Lensbaby mounted to that, and no close up filter, I narrowed the angle of view while allowing closer focusing.

The net difference is less depth of field with any lens, but what's more important - the Lensbaby no longer has the look of a centrally sharp image with vaseline smeared on glass set in front of the lens - the shift from sharp to blurred (and stretched) with the Lensbaby at normal distances doesn't usually work for me, but here, with the tilting plane of focus and extremely limited depth of field (as opposed to lens blurring, the result is very pleasing to me.

It's possible I could achieve the same thing with a fast lens and extension tube, but it happens I don't own any fast lenses at all. I did think to use the 70-200 because it has IS, but it's big and awkward to hold, and you can't shift the plane of focus. I think this might turn out to be an interesting combination, Lensbaby Composer and extension tube.