Hi everyone. I havent posted much recently because i got sick last week. Eventually I had to be admitted to the hospital (first time ever). Anyway I'm still at the hospital but i'll be posting again when I recover, hopefully by the end of the week. See you all soon!
Monday, 29 April 2013
Saturday, 27 April 2013
A seller on ebay (bestpriceoptics) is now selling the Samyang 24 f/3.5 tilt shift lens, in Canon and Nikon mounts, for $999 shipped. This one is branded Rokinon.
Canon
Nikon
Note: I'm not affiliated with the seller or with Samyang.
BTW, sorry I haven't posted much recently due to illness. I will post again when I recover.
Canon
Nikon
Note: I'm not affiliated with the seller or with Samyang.
BTW, sorry I haven't posted much recently due to illness. I will post again when I recover.
Friday, 26 April 2013
DPReview has posted its in-depth Nikon D7100 Review.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100
Notably, DPR shows that the D7100 has greater shadow and highlight dynamic range compared to the D7000. In the ADL Extra High mode, the D7100's shadow range is off the charts, and its highlight range is almost at the edge of the chart.
Also of note is the shape of the D7100's tone curve. With ADL off, the D7100's tone curve has a softer shoulder (more gentle highlight roll-off) compared to the D7000 or D600.
The review doesn't mention banding in extreme exposure adjustments (but neither does DPReview mention banding in other cameras that have it, such as some Canon DSLRs).
RELATED POSTS
Nikon D7100 Hands-On Real World User Review
Nikon D7100 Low Light Teaser
Nikon D7100 FAQ and Helpful Links
Nikon D7100 Shadow Recovery
Nikon D7100 Real World Dynamic Range
Nikon D5200 and D7100 Band-Aid: Solutions for Banding
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7100
Notably, DPR shows that the D7100 has greater shadow and highlight dynamic range compared to the D7000. In the ADL Extra High mode, the D7100's shadow range is off the charts, and its highlight range is almost at the edge of the chart.
Also of note is the shape of the D7100's tone curve. With ADL off, the D7100's tone curve has a softer shoulder (more gentle highlight roll-off) compared to the D7000 or D600.
The review doesn't mention banding in extreme exposure adjustments (but neither does DPReview mention banding in other cameras that have it, such as some Canon DSLRs).
RELATED POSTS
Nikon D7100 Hands-On Real World User Review
Nikon D7100 Low Light Teaser
Nikon D7100 FAQ and Helpful Links
Nikon D7100 Shadow Recovery
Nikon D7100 Real World Dynamic Range
Nikon D5200 and D7100 Band-Aid: Solutions for Banding
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
B&H is offering the Sigma USB dock for preorder for $59 + s/h, due for shipping on May 18. The dock allows you to update your firmware and customize your lens:
- AF fine tuning on steroids: You can adjust front and back focus at different focal lengths and different focusing distances.
- For Sports lenses, in addition to firmware updates and AF fine tuning, you can also adjust: the AF speed, the focus limiter (to narrow the focusing to the relevant range for your photography), and the Optical Stabilization.
The dock is compatible with the new Sigma Global Vision CAS lenses, including the Sigma 35 1.4 and the 18-35 1.8. To use the dock, you'll need the Sigma Optimization Pro software which is free, and will be available when the dock starts shipping.
I ordered one for my Sigma 35 1.4 (and possibly the 18-35 1.8) and will post about it. You can also check out this hands-on review from Photography Daily News.
According to DXO, the sharpest standard zoom for Nikon full frame cameras is the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, edging out the Nikon 24-70 2.8G. See DXO's report here: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-review-An-affordable-fast-standard-zoom-that-comes-out-on-top . The Tamron 24-70 VC is also less expensive and has stabilization. I haven't tried the 24-70 VC myself but find this very intriguing.
Of course, sharpness is not the only factor for choosing a lens. Other factors include the autofocus speed and accuracy, and the quality of the bokeh, factors not taken into account by the DXO comparison. In that regard, I found the Nikon 24-70 2.8G to have fast and accurate autofocus. As for the bokeh I find it pleasant. See here: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-day-with-my-precious-ones-and-my-kids.html Hopefully the Tamron excels in those areas as well.
Monday, 22 April 2013
Lately there has been an increased concern over dust spots in sensors, at least with some cameras such as the Nikon D600 and Nikon D7000. There are several products that can be used for cleaning a sensor. One such product is the Firefly DSC-2000 Digital Sensor Cleaner.
Assembling the Firefly is simple enough, as shown in the video. However, it was not so easy to insert the adapter into the blower. The best way I've found is to twist the blower as you push the adapter on the blower.
Also, I should note that the first blower I tried was the one that came with the LensPen Sensor Klear Loupe Kit. Although the blower fit the Hurricane adapter that was included with the kit, the blower was not long enough and the adapter could not go all the way into the blower, making it somewhat loose. I ordered a Giottos blower, which fit the included Giottos adapter perfectly.
USAGE AND SAFETY
The Firefly DSC-2000 is easy to use. You just press the power button, you see the light come on and you can hear a high pitched sound (barely audible). The ionizer stays on for about 10 seconds, and you pump the blower several times.
The component that ionizes the air also serves to prevent the blower tip from touching the sensor (at least the Nikon DX or FX mount - don't know about mirrorless or Canon or other mounts). However, if the blower tip is angled a certain way, it *might* touch and damage the delicate shutter curtain. (Obviously I did not test if it would indeed touch it.) This risk would be present for any other blower or most other cleaning methods as well. In any case, it appears that it is not necessary to stick the Firefly blower tip close to the sensor to produce an adequate blast of air (by comparison, with my Lenspen blower, the blast of air was not as strong and seemed like I needed to get closer to the sensor).
BTW before I got the Firefly, I had also tried a cheap USB ionizer. Two of them in fact. I tried to blast a normal blower through them. It did not produce any noticeable effect compared to just using a blower. Moreover, my understanding is that those ionizers produce only negative ions, so there is a charge to the air (if it does work), which could damage the camera. Plus it could cause particles to stick to the sensor. In the case of the Firefly, it produces both positive and negative ions, therefore the overall charge is neutral, and the discharging effect would work on both positively-charged or negatively-charged surfaces/particles. Why the ions don't cancel each other out before they act on the particles - I don't know exactly. (Anyone who wants to chime in on this, feel free to do so in the comments.) What I do know is that Firefly's discharging effect has been demonstrated to work. See this video:
Giottos only:
f/22
f/45
The Giottos blower was able to get rid of some of the spots, including the hair-like strand.
Giottos + Firefly:
f/22
f/45
With the Firefly, the blower was able to remove a few more spots, although there are still many spots remaining.
D7000
I tested the Firefly on the D7000 as well, but without the intermediate step of using the Giottos blower by itself.
Before cleaning:
f/22
f/45
After Giottos+Firefly:
f/22
f/45
As with the S5, the Firefly was able to remove many of the spots on the D7000 (mostly on the lower left and lower middle part of the frame). Again, many spots remain.
D600
The Firefly is a modified blower that ionizes the air blown to the sensor, creating both negative as well as positive ions. The idea is that if there are dust spots clinging to the sensor because of static, the ionized air will neutralize the charge and cause the dust to fall off. The Firefly also has a filter to ensure that the air being blown has no particles.
In this post, I show test results from using a DSC-2000 on a D600, a D7000, and a Fuji S5.
Assembling the Firefly is simple enough, as shown in the video. However, it was not so easy to insert the adapter into the blower. The best way I've found is to twist the blower as you push the adapter on the blower.
Also, I should note that the first blower I tried was the one that came with the LensPen Sensor Klear Loupe Kit. Although the blower fit the Hurricane adapter that was included with the kit, the blower was not long enough and the adapter could not go all the way into the blower, making it somewhat loose. I ordered a Giottos blower, which fit the included Giottos adapter perfectly.
USAGE AND SAFETY
The Firefly DSC-2000 is easy to use. You just press the power button, you see the light come on and you can hear a high pitched sound (barely audible). The ionizer stays on for about 10 seconds, and you pump the blower several times.
The component that ionizes the air also serves to prevent the blower tip from touching the sensor (at least the Nikon DX or FX mount - don't know about mirrorless or Canon or other mounts). However, if the blower tip is angled a certain way, it *might* touch and damage the delicate shutter curtain. (Obviously I did not test if it would indeed touch it.) This risk would be present for any other blower or most other cleaning methods as well. In any case, it appears that it is not necessary to stick the Firefly blower tip close to the sensor to produce an adequate blast of air (by comparison, with my Lenspen blower, the blast of air was not as strong and seemed like I needed to get closer to the sensor).
BTW before I got the Firefly, I had also tried a cheap USB ionizer. Two of them in fact. I tried to blast a normal blower through them. It did not produce any noticeable effect compared to just using a blower. Moreover, my understanding is that those ionizers produce only negative ions, so there is a charge to the air (if it does work), which could damage the camera. Plus it could cause particles to stick to the sensor. In the case of the Firefly, it produces both positive and negative ions, therefore the overall charge is neutral, and the discharging effect would work on both positively-charged or negatively-charged surfaces/particles. Why the ions don't cancel each other out before they act on the particles - I don't know exactly. (Anyone who wants to chime in on this, feel free to do so in the comments.) What I do know is that Firefly's discharging effect has been demonstrated to work. See this video:
TESTS
Although the Firefly demo against Zeeion is interesting, it bears little resemblance to sensor cleaning. The particles that cling to sensors are much smaller therefore it is harder for the blower to act on them, and they can stick better to the sensor surface. Plus there is no vibration to shake off the particles. On the other hand, the blower air hits the particles directly. Anyway, notwithstanding the proven discharging effect, we still need to test whether and to what extent the Firefly works as designed.
Although the Firefly demo against Zeeion is interesting, it bears little resemblance to sensor cleaning. The particles that cling to sensors are much smaller therefore it is harder for the blower to act on them, and they can stick better to the sensor surface. Plus there is no vibration to shake off the particles. On the other hand, the blower air hits the particles directly. Anyway, notwithstanding the proven discharging effect, we still need to test whether and to what extent the Firefly works as designed.
Fuji S5
In this test, I used a Fuji S5, took baseline shots with a Tamron 70-300 at f/22 and f/45. I cleaned the Fuji S5 with a Giottos blower (large), took a couple more shots at f/22 and f/45. Then I used the Giottos blower attached to the Firefly, first cleaning the mirror box (with the mirror down), then using the Firefly with the mirror up, several times (at least 4 or 5 times of about 10 seconds each). I then took shots at f/22 and f/45. Here are the test shots (full resolution versions available when you click on them). The shots were adjusted in Lightroom to make the spots easier to see (Auto Tone, +1EV, +66 white, -66 black in the case of the s5 and -100 black in the case of the D600 and D7000, change to black & white).
Before using either blower:
f/22
f/45
f/22
f/45
Giottos only:
f/22
f/45
The Giottos blower was able to get rid of some of the spots, including the hair-like strand.
Giottos + Firefly:
f/22
f/45
With the Firefly, the blower was able to remove a few more spots, although there are still many spots remaining.
D7000
I tested the Firefly on the D7000 as well, but without the intermediate step of using the Giottos blower by itself.
Before cleaning:
f/22
f/45
After Giottos+Firefly:
f/22
f/45
As with the S5, the Firefly was able to remove many of the spots on the D7000 (mostly on the lower left and lower middle part of the frame). Again, many spots remain.
D600
I actually tested the D600 first and had not thought about doing a baseline at f/22, so I can only show a comparison at f/45. Nonetheless I've included the f/22 shot after cleaning to show what f/22 would look like, with and without contrast adjustment.
Before blower:
After Giottos+Firefly
f/45
f/22 (with contrast adjustment)
f/22 (without contrast adjustment)
The Firefly reduced the dust spots significantly, but there are still many spots that remain.
Before blower:
After Giottos+Firefly
f/45
f/22 (with contrast adjustment)
f/22 (without contrast adjustment)
The Firefly reduced the dust spots significantly, but there are still many spots that remain.
CONCLUSION
The Firefly appears to be effective at reducing dust spots but does not appear to eradicate them, even with multiple attempts. In a follow-up to this post, I will try to clean the sensor again with the LensPen Sensor Klear, combined with the Firefly.
The Firefly appears to be effective at reducing dust spots but does not appear to eradicate them, even with multiple attempts. In a follow-up to this post, I will try to clean the sensor again with the LensPen Sensor Klear, combined with the Firefly.
Thursday, 18 April 2013
 |
| OM-D & Leica 25mm f/1.4 (taken with the Sony RX100, check the end of the post for a BTS) |
This Leica lens is one of the great lenses available for MFT (Micro Four Thirds), it gives you a fast f/1.4 aperture, a favorite 50mm equivalent focal length, good sharpness, small size, fast focusing, and special image rendering.
In this post I will attempt to write down my impressions after using this combo for a few months now.
A few stats before I start, out of the shots I took using the OM-D:
- 50% are taken with the 25mm f/1.4.
- 30% are taken with the 45mm f/1.8.
- 15% are taken with the 12-50mm.
- 15% are taken with the 40-150mm.
And out of the shots taken with the 25mm f/1.4:
- 50% shot at f/1.4.
- 48% shot between f/1.8 and f/4.
- 2% shot beyond f/4.
 |
| Self Portrait, 1/40, f/1.4, ISO 400 |
If that's an indication, it shows how much I enjoy shooting a fast, 50mm equivalent lens, it is my go to lens without much thinking, with APS-C I enjoyed shooting the Canon 35mm f/2, with full frame I enjoyed shooting the Canon 50mm f/1.4. And now, I am having a lot of fun with this lens. I will show you a lot of pictures in this post.
 |
| Size Comparison (taken with the Sony RX100) |
First things first, this is a small lens, you can see above how it compares to a "AA" battery, I would say it is similar in size to Canon's 50mm f/1.8, but it has a smaller 46mm filter thread, however it is not as tiny as the 45mm f/1.8. It has a metal lens mount and feels very solid. You get a soft carrying case and a weird rectangular snap-on lens hood, which I never used once in the box.
This brings me to the major change that happened in my shooting habits, during my DSLR shooting days I developed some habits that were sort of religious for me:
- Never shoot without a lens hood, I bought the expensive Canon lens hoods for ALL of my Canon lenses, even the 18-55 kit lens.
- Always shoot at higher than "1/eq. focal length" shutter speeds, even with IS.
- Always use AI Servo continuous focusing, never single focus.
- Always use a single focus-point, never trust auto-focus point selection.
- Take lots of shots while keeping the focus tracking on, you never know when the eye will be in perfect focus.
- When in doubt, expose to the right and reduce the highlights/exposure in post.
 |
| Chasing Cats (you can see my reflection, shot using the tilt screen), 1/80, f/1.4, ISO 800 |
Back to the lens, if you want a fast 50mm lens for MFT, you have this one, the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95, albeit with manual focus, and they say the 20mm f/1.7, but from my experience with the 40mm and 50mm lenses on the 5D3, I found out that 40mm is significantly wider than 50mm and more similar to a 35mm lens, so they are quite different.
 |
| Come With Me, 1/2000, f/1.6, ISO 200 |
I like the rendering of this lens, it has a certain cinematic look to it when shot wide-open or thereabouts, there is pink/green CA when shooting wide-open at the edges of high contrast, however it is easily corrected in lightroom. Here's one more cinematic looking picture:
 |
| Colorful Restaurant, 1/125, f/1.4, ISO 1600 |
As for sharpness, this lens is fairly sharp wide-open, and gets very sharp by f/2.8, check the picture below, with a 100% crop:
 |
| Disapproving, 1/1250, f/1.4, ISO 400 |
 |
| 100% crop, sharper than my Canon 50 f/1.4 wide-open |
There are a few people who reported that this lens produced clicking sounds when used on an Olympus body, and the reason is that the aperture blades are opening and closing quickly all the time. This had me worried when I decided to buy this lens, but I am glad to report that it doesn't happen on my OMD at all.
 |
| Old Bed, 1/40, f/4, ISO 400 |
This might not be a technical review of the lens, but that's all I have to say about it, it is definitely worth trying out if you love a 50mm focal length and have a MFT camera. Last thing I want to comment on is the focusing speed, it is very fast, same as the 45mm f/1.8.
Despite all this, and my pleasure using this combo, there is nothing like a fast 50mm and a full frame combo, I really wish someone makes a small full frame mirrorless camera with an EVF and a great 50mm f/1.4 lens, this is a camera that could force me to sell everything and just own it and a speedlite, even if it cost $2500. Here's one of the more magical shots taken with my 5D3 and 50mm f/1.4 wide-open, it is not as sharp as the OMD/Leica combo at 100%, but you can't deny it oozes bokehlicious-ness, eh? Sometimes I think of buying a 5D2 + 50 1.4 or a D700 + Sigma 50 1.4.
 |
| 5D Mark 3 & Canon 50mm f/1.4, 1/100, f/1.4, ISO 400 |
Below are some more pictures from this lens for your entertainment.
 |
| Deserted, 1/50, f/1.4, ISO 1600 |
 |
| Moon Shine, 1/3, f/4.5, ISO 1600 |
 |
| Energizer, 1/40, f/1.4, ISO 200 |
 |
| Home Sweet Home, 1/30, f/1.4, ISO 200 |
 |
| Petrol Station, 1/30, f/5.6, ISO 1600 |
 |
| B&W Sunset, 1/50, f/9, ISO 400 |
 |
| Kewl, 1/60, f/2.8, ISO 640, yellow color and grain added in post |
BEHIND THE SCENES
Here's a little bonus for reaching this far, the opening shot and the size comparison shot were both shot using the tiny Sony RX100.
I used two Yongnuo 560-II flashes in optical slave mode (S2), and triggered them using the Sony's popup flash set to fill-light and -2 FEC, and bounced to the ceiling using my DIY bouncer. I was syncing the Sony at ISO 400, f/8 and 1/2000 sec which is it's fastest shutter speed, how cool is that?
Here's the setup shot:
 |
| Sony RX100, 1/2000, f/8, ISO 400 |
RELATED POSTS
Olympus OM-D: First Impressions & Comments on DOF
OM-D: Macro Fun @ Home
OM-D, Bits & Pieces
Review: Sony RX100
Just when I thought I had almost every focal length covered, here comes the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 (for APS-C cameras). Right now I have the Sigma 35 1.4. I like the focal length on FX. On DX, it is a normal lens, which is ok, though I prefer wider angles. The Sigma 18-35 1.8 fits that need exactly. It has a prime-like wide aperture for the shallow DOF that I like, and it covers focal lengths that I find very useful: ~28mm, 35mm and 50mm equivalents.
Of course, because this is a zoom, one question is what its image quality is like. No one knows yet, but a clue is the MTF chart released by Sigma. First, here is Sigma's MTF chart for the Sigma 35 1.4 (one of the sharpest, if not the sharpest, lenses at its focal length):
Now here is the MTF chart for the 18-35:
The comparison is not fair because the Sigma 35's MTF chart is for full frame, whereas the Sigma 18-35 is for APS-C. Nonetheless, at 18mm the Sigma 18-35's sharpness and contrast on APS-C is similar to, if not better than, that of the Sigma 35 on full frame. At 35mm the edge-to-edge sharpness on APS-C is significantly better than the Sigma 35 1.4 on full frame. So much so that if you compare the 18-35 to the Sigma 35 1.4 at APS-C size, the Sigma 18-35 looks a bit better(!!!). Just a reminder: the Sigma 35 1.4 is a prime lens, and one of the sharpest lenses at that. Is this for real? I will be the first in line to get this lens if the price is justifiable! Sigma please don't overprice this lens, I'm begging you!
UPDATE: here is another MTF chart to look at. This is from the Sigma 17-50 OS, the sharpest standard zoom for Nikon DX (Canon mount also available) according to DXO.
Sigma's dedicated website for the 18-35 1.8: http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_18_35_18/index.html
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
One of Lightroom 5's new features is Smart Preview, which is a 2540-pixel raw format that you can generate. They can be edited and exported just like the full resolution photo. I was very interested in this feature because it would allow me to edit my shots faster when I don't need the full resolution photo. However I found out that it's not exactly what I imagined it to be.
- I found that Smart Previews aren't designed as alternative files for editing. Rather they are only designed to allow you to work on your photos when they are offline (i.e. are disconnected from the hard drive that contains the raw files). It appears there is no built-in function to force LR to edit the smart previews when the originals are available (one way is to eject the hard drive - but also see below).
- If you really want to use Smart Previews as alternative files, it is possible to export the Smart Preview as a DNG and add those to your catalog. You would have to take the originals offline to force LR to use the Smart Preview, then export those as DNG, then import those new DNGs. But see below re loss of quality.
- Although Smart Previews are called 'raw' files, they have less information than the original files (not just in terms of resolution), similar to the lossy DNG format. Victoria Brampton (LightroomQueen.com) said that if you make extreme exposure adjustments (e.g. +5EV) to the Smart Preview you may see artifacts, although those may disappear when the originals become available.
- When a file has a Smart Preview, it will load faster in the Develop module.
- If you are working on the Smart Preview (offline) and you click on 1:1 resolution, you will see the 1:1 view at the Smart Preview's resolution, not the original photo's resolution.
- When you edit a Smart Preview, the edits sync to the original photos automatically when the original becomes available. Lightroom will compensate for the difference in resolution (e.g. in adjustments to noise reduction).
Tuesday, 16 April 2013
Lightroom 5 beta is here! I think this is a very significant upgrade - in my opinion, bigger than the upgrade from LR3 to LR4.
Features:
UPDATE: I found that Smart Previews isn't exactly what I hoped for. See this post for more info about Smart Previews.
[Some may wonder - what's the point of a high-res camera if it will be downsampled. The benefits include sharpness and less noise.]
Note: the beta expires June 30, 2013 therefore expect LR5 to be available on or before then.
Note 2: historically, Adobe has only provided raw support for the new cameras in the current version of Lightroom (and Photoshop) therefore if you buy a new camera after LR5 is released, don't expect to find Adobe raw support for it in LR4 or previous versions of LR. You'll have to use the DNG converter unless you get LR5.
Features:
- Advanced Healing Brush: instead of correcting just a spot, you can now paint a correction. This is so convenient! I used to be forced to go to Photoshop just for that. Hopefully it works well. Update: tried it and just got reminded it's not a substitute for content-aware spot healing because it has to take the brushed area from another area, just like the old spot healing.
- Smart Previews: can generate a 2540-pixel raw file (while keeping the original file). Wow. Most of the time I don't need a full-resolution shot and I wished that the D600 had an sRaw (small raw) format just like Canon. LR5 makes that dream come true! Update: now I'm a little confused because I don't know when I'm looking at the preview and when I'm looking at the original. What I do know is that with smart preview, LR5 is super responsive (not surprising given that the smart preview is only 1mb whereas the actual image is 20+mb).
- Radial Gradient: similar to the gradient tool except you can do it with a circular or oblong pattern. This is very useful to me because I otherwise have to resort to using the adjustment brush. Update: very usable. I think I will use this tool very often.
UPDATE: I found that Smart Previews isn't exactly what I hoped for. See this post for more info about Smart Previews.
[Some may wonder - what's the point of a high-res camera if it will be downsampled. The benefits include sharpness and less noise.]
Other features:
- Upright tool: automatically levels horizons and corrects keystoning. This is a new tab under Lens Corrections.
- Video slideshow: combine photos, videos, and music in a creative HD slideshow.
- Upgrades to the Book module.
- In the spot removal tool, there is a new option called 'Visualize Spots' to show spots more easily.
Still no layers, unfortunately (Corel's Aftershot Pro does have that).
Download here: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom5/
Note: the beta expires June 30, 2013 therefore expect LR5 to be available on or before then.
Note 2: historically, Adobe has only provided raw support for the new cameras in the current version of Lightroom (and Photoshop) therefore if you buy a new camera after LR5 is released, don't expect to find Adobe raw support for it in LR4 or previous versions of LR. You'll have to use the DNG converter unless you get LR5.
Saturday, 13 April 2013
Happy April 15th! Hopefully you are receiving a tax refund! :)
This post is a follow-up to my previous post where I discussed alternatives to the Nikon D7100. Here, I'll talk about which one I chose, and why.
All of the alternatives I presented were genuinely attractive to me, so I had to use a process of elimination. Please note much of my reasoning is particular to my situation, and everyone has unique circumstances so the best choice would likely be different for each of us.
Fuji X-E1. I love the image quality (including the quality of the Fuji X system lenses). I also really like the Fuji colors (especially skin tones). However, I have two significant concerns: first, the lens selection is too limited. I want to use a telephoto with my 2nd body and there aren't any fast telephoto lenses (yet) for the X-E1. I also want to use ultrawides and the widest Fuji lens right now is only 21mm equivalent, with no fisheyes available. Although it does have good primes, I already have those focal lengths covered with the D600. Second, its flash system is also a weak point for me -- Fuji's wireless flash system is a lot simpler than those of Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Sony (for example, no wireless TTL), and its sync speed is a sluggish 1/180 (and since my settings are in 1/3 stops, then I actually have to use 1/160). I might consider this system in the future if I wanted to shoot more simply and they have prime lenses in a 28 or 35mm equivalent and an 85mm equivalent.
Nikon D5100. I could have saved a lot by choosing this camera, and it has a very good sensor plus the tilt screen that I want. But I was concerned that I might run into some of its limitations in the future, such as not having a built-in focus motor, or a built-in flash commander. The biggest concern I had was the absence of AF fine tuning. When I had a D90, I found it performed very well but my 24-70 was backfocusing on it, therefore images were always out of focus. It annoyed me enough so that I sold the D90 and replaced it with a D300S. With the D5100, I didn't want to end up with the same problem. However, if I had only a few lenses and could buy the D5100 from a local store that would allow me to test the body with my lenses and exchange bodies if necessary, this might have been a viable choice.
Olympus OM-D E-M5. I was really tempted by the fast and accurate autofocus, and the tilting touch screen, both of which I think could greatly increase my chance of capturing candid shots, which is what I shoot most of the time. I am only slightly concerned about the depth of field which is deeper than an APS-C camera. Because I'm using my 2nd body for wide angles (where I usually want a deep DOF) or for telephoto (where the DOF is deep enough even with m4/3, and in fact has a more usable DOF than a full frame) it's not a significant disadvantage for me. The problem for me was the cost of changing my lenses. I'm already too invested in the Nikon system. If I didn't have any lenses yet or if I wanted to shoot with just a couple of primes, this would have been my first or second choice.
Nikon D700. There is very little to complain about the D700, which is a great camera from pretty much everything relevant to me including dynamic range, high ISO performance, and autofocus. One concern was the cost of having to changing my DX lenses to FX equivalents. That is balanced out by the strengths of the FX alternatives (for example, the Nikon 70-200 f4 VR and Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC both seem better than the Sigma 50-150 non-OS). Ultimately I did not get the D700 because I could not find one that I felt was reasonably priced, and the only ones I saw were more than double the cost of the camera I chose. In the future, when D700 prices drop sufficiently, I may trade up to a D700.
And the camera I chose, somewhat predictably, is the
Nikon D7000. When the D7000 first came out I was very impressed with its specs. I was even more impressed when I found out about how well its sensor performed (for high ISO and for dynamic range). I wanted one for a long time but was put off by the high prices (even for used ones). This year, with the release of the D7100, D7000 prices have come down to more reasonable levels. Most importantly for me, it has no significant weaknesses. I do have a little concern about the autofocus (some have complained about it) but I'm hoping it will be acceptable.
Meanwhile, I found a used one that was reasonably priced and was described as in very good condition from Adorama. Note: Adorama and B&H have very stringent ratings for their used cameras. When Adorama or B&H says the camera is in 'very good' condition, I interpret that as another seller's 'excellent' condition. On top of that, the camera had a 6-month warranty. Indeed, the camera was in great condition with no scratches or dings (it was missing the manuals though). Its shutter count was only 3003! So, in the next coming weeks I will be testing the D7000 out and will post about how it compares to the D600 and the D7100.
There is actually one more reason I chose the D7000 (a reason that applies equally to the D700): I can add a tilting LCD to it! Specifically, the D7000 uses an older analog audio/video output (not the HDMI port of current models) which is compatible with the Aputure Gigtube, a compact external live view monitor and remote shutter with a tilting LCD screen. (The Gigtube is available for several Canon and Nikon cameras.)
The Gigtube can be mounted to the camera and function as a tilting LCD screen. I will be posting about how well the Gigtube works in practice.
 |
| a waist-level finder for the D7000! |
Friday, 12 April 2013
 |
| Nikon D7100 + Nikkor 28-105 3.5-4.5D. |
Here are the cameras I considered:
Nikon D7000. Known for having incredible shadow recovery capabilities. Even though its high ISO is not as good as that of the D7100, it still has one of the best high ISO capabilities among APS-C cameras. Now available used for $600+ or sometimes less. Even the Nikon refurbished one is only $750. Possible concerns: some have complained about the autofocus. Some have also complained about having dust or oil spots on the sensor.
Nikon D5100. Same incredible sensor as that of the D7000 but adds a tilting LCD screen, which I want for unusual shooting angles. Available refurbished for a very reasonable $400. I have a long list of concerns: this would be the first entry level Nikon for me, and it lacks many of the features I have gotten used to such as having two command dials and having a built-in commander. Most importantly, it doesn't have AF fine tuning. It also doesn't have an autofocus motor and I have some lenses that don't have built-in AF motors (Tokina 10-17, Tokina 11-16, Nikon 28-105 and who knows what else in the future).
Nikon D700. For the longest time I had wanted a D700 but I ended up getting a D3 because of the high prices for a used D700. Prices have now come down since then, and I've seen it a few times in the $1200+ range, although more typically it is a little higher. Great high ISO performance and shadow recovery. Good AF system. Doesn't have video but I can live without that. "Only" 12mp but that's still more than what I need. My concern is that because it's full frame, I will have to change some of my lenses. But some of the choices will be easier. For example I could use the Sigma 35 1.4 on the D600 and Nikon 85 1.8G or Tamron 70-300 VC on the D700.
Olympus OM-D E-M5. My coauthor MShafik loves his. See here. The biggest attraction for me is the fast and accurate autofocus. I would also like the tilting LCD. I also wonder whether the small size would change my shooting style (perhaps I might try shooting candid street photos). My concerns are that I would have to change some of my lenses, and might have to buy an m4/3 flash. I am also a little bit concerned about reselling it in the future because there are fewer m4/3 shooters than Nikon shooters.
Fuji X-E1. I have heard very good things about the image quality (which are in part due to the excellent lenses in Fuji's X system) and the autofocus. It also looks very stylish (I can't believe I'm saying that! But at least I do know my wife would love to use it). Just like the OM-D I would have to replace some of my lenses, and the X system has fewer lenses to choose from (and no fast telephoto lenses yet). Obviously resale is a big concern. Also, no one knows if the X system will still be around down the road.
Nikon D600. I would love to have a second one but obviously it costs too much. The funny thing is I saw a used one advertised on craigslist for just $1350! But when I read the details -- supposedly "shipped to me by Adorama" but "was given as a gift" and therefore has no box, etc. etc. It was obvious there was something fishy going on.
In my next post, you'll see which one I chose.
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
Here are some helpful links for information related to the Nikon D7100. Most of the information here is posted on the Flicrk D7100 Group.
Reviews of the D7100
Hands-on real-world user review: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/03/nikon-d7100-hands-on-real-world-review.html
More reviews: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157632998778705/
Comparison between D7100 and D7000
First Impressions: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633048733669/
ISO 6400: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633049390320/
User perspective by Alex Boge and macwalter44: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633117224006/
Comparison between D7100 and D600
Daylight shots: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633061265256/
Low light test shots: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/7215763304547485...
DXO score
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633101662527/
More reviews: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157632998778705/
Comparison between D7100 and D7000
First Impressions: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633048733669/
ISO 6400: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633049390320/
User perspective by Alex Boge and macwalter44: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633117224006/
Comparison between D7100 and D600
Daylight shots: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633061265256/
Low light test shots: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/7215763304547485...
DXO score
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633101662527/
Image quality tests
DPReview studio scene test: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d7100/7
Imaging Resource studio scene test: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d7100/nikon-d7100A7.HTM
High ISO comparison vs. D7000, D600 and D700: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/03/high-iso-comparison-d7100-vs-d7000-d600.html
High ISO comparison vs. D7000, D600 and D700: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/03/high-iso-comparison-d7100-vs-d7000-d600.html
Samples of moire: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633004426130/
Banding
Real world dynamic range preview: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/03/nikon-d7100-real-world-dynamic-range.html
D7100 Tips (including importing raw into Lightroom)
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157632998886398/
Importing raw into Picasa, Faststone:
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633006777765/
Importing raw into Picasa and Rawtherapee:
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633058180679/
Lenses tested with the D7100
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633031077056/
User's manual
support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/18247
When can we expect shipment? (thread includes Canada)
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157632958569796/
Amazon: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157632993134705/
Amazon UK: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633044987172/
Adorama: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633008595665/
support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/18247
When can we expect shipment? (thread includes Canada)
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157632958569796/
Amazon: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157632993134705/
Amazon UK: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633044987172/
Adorama: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633008595665/
I haven't posted in a while but only because I've been doing a lot of testing about the Nikon D7100 banding issue. In this post, I will discuss ways to reduce the chance of banding, and what to do if it does show up.
In post, I raised the exposure by +5EV, way past what is needed for recovering shadows in the image. (For the argumentative ones among us, I'm obviously doing this for discussion purposes only.)
If you look at the result, even at 100% view, there is mostly no banding, except in the darkest parts of the shadows. The thinner left branch has negligible banding while the part of the tree trunk in the middle has some banding visible.
Most of the image has negligible banding, like the left branch, which shows that banding tends to appear only in the deepest shadows.
Low ISOs.
If the ISO is high enough, the banding will not be easily discernible because of the noise in the image. Here is a test shot at 1000 ISO (cropped).
Even if the exposure is raised +5EV, the banding is hardly visible.
Significant pushing
From testing several shots at 14-bit raw, it seems that the banding will show up if exposure is pushed by around +2.7 to +3EV. But see below re shadow recovery vs. exposure.
If you combine these three factors, it gives you an idea of the likelihood of the banding issue affecting your shots. For most people, it is very unlikely. For a few people, such as those who like to shoot sunsets, it is more likely to be observable (depending on other factors such as whether they like sunsets that show a lot of shadow detail or no detail like as a silhouette). In my case, I like to shoot backlit shots and I often underexpose intentionally to preserve highlights, then push the exposure in post. So I would say my risk is higher than average. Nonetheless, I have not yet seen banding in my normal shots, except for that day when I shot with 12-bit lossy compression (see below).
NOT A MANUFACTURING DEFECT
D7000
Using the in-camera raw processor, I pushed exposure by 2 stops. Here are the results:
D7100
D7000
Here is a screenshot of a side-by-side comparison (note: there is a difference in magnification due to the difference in resolution):
I have looked at files from my older Nikons and I pushed the exposure +5EV in shots with deep shadow. At +5EV, I did not find any banding in the Fuji S5, Nikon D300S, D300, D90, or even the 7-year old D80. (Definitely no banding on the D3 or D600.) I did see banding on the D70 when exposure was pushed significantly. And y'all probably know banding also affects Canon cameras.
First of all, the banding is real. It affects the Nikon D5200 and Nikon D7100, both of which share the same Toshiba sensor. Although the D5200 / D7100 sensor outperforms the Nikon D7000, the D5200 / D7100 sensor can have horizontal line pattern noise in deep shadows in low ISOs if the exposure is pushed significantly. Let's look at each of those factors one by one.
Deep shadows. Banding will show up only in shadows, and only if the shadows are deep enough. If the shadows are not very deep, there will be little or no banding. Here is a test shot:
In post, I raised the exposure by +5EV, way past what is needed for recovering shadows in the image. (For the argumentative ones among us, I'm obviously doing this for discussion purposes only.)
If you look at the result, even at 100% view, there is mostly no banding, except in the darkest parts of the shadows. The thinner left branch has negligible banding while the part of the tree trunk in the middle has some banding visible.
Most of the image has negligible banding, like the left branch, which shows that banding tends to appear only in the deepest shadows.
Low ISOs.
If the ISO is high enough, the banding will not be easily discernible because of the noise in the image. Here is a test shot at 1000 ISO (cropped).
Even if the exposure is raised +5EV, the banding is hardly visible.
 |
| 100% crop |
Significant pushing
From testing several shots at 14-bit raw, it seems that the banding will show up if exposure is pushed by around +2.7 to +3EV. But see below re shadow recovery vs. exposure.
If you combine these three factors, it gives you an idea of the likelihood of the banding issue affecting your shots. For most people, it is very unlikely. For a few people, such as those who like to shoot sunsets, it is more likely to be observable (depending on other factors such as whether they like sunsets that show a lot of shadow detail or no detail like as a silhouette). In my case, I like to shoot backlit shots and I often underexpose intentionally to preserve highlights, then push the exposure in post. So I would say my risk is higher than average. Nonetheless, I have not yet seen banding in my normal shots, except for that day when I shot with 12-bit lossy compression (see below).
NOT A MANUFACTURING DEFECT
Earlier I had wondered whether it was an issue affecting only some units (i.e. a manufacturing defect) because the DPReview and Imaging Resource samples seem to show very little banding. However, I have gone back to the store where I purchased my camera and tried out another D7100. It showed the same banding behavior as my camera. A couple of folks on the Flickr D7100 Group and the DPReview forum have also tried more than one unit, and they also showed banding. This suggests that the banding issue affects all units.
WHAT ABOUT OTHER CAMERAS?
I had a chance to compare the D7000 and D7100. Here are shots I took using the same exposure and same lens:
D7100
WHAT ABOUT OTHER CAMERAS?
I had a chance to compare the D7000 and D7100. Here are shots I took using the same exposure and same lens:
D7100
D7000
Using the in-camera raw processor, I pushed exposure by 2 stops. Here are the results:
D7100
D7000
Here is a screenshot of a side-by-side comparison (note: there is a difference in magnification due to the difference in resolution):
I have looked at files from my older Nikons and I pushed the exposure +5EV in shots with deep shadow. At +5EV, I did not find any banding in the Fuji S5, Nikon D300S, D300, D90, or even the 7-year old D80. (Definitely no banding on the D3 or D600.) I did see banding on the D70 when exposure was pushed significantly. And y'all probably know banding also affects Canon cameras.
HOW TO REDUCE THE CHANCE OF BANDING
Given that the banding is a real phenomenon for the D5200 and D7100, what can we do to reduce the chance of banding (besides the factors already mentioned above)?
14-bit raw
The easiest way to reduce banding is to use 14-bit raw. In a previous post I found that 14-bit raw has far less banding than 12-bit raw. Go to the shooting menu on the camera, find the option for NEF (RAW) Recording and set it to 14-bit. We may as well use lossless compression as well, just in case.
JPEG vs. RAW
In some cases, using JPEG instead of raw shows less banding partly because the JPEG would clip shadow details that would otherwise be retained in the raw version, albeit with banding. However, for me, using raw has too many advantages that I don't wish to forgo simply to avoid banding, so I can't really do much about this except perhaps to use JPEG + Raw for shots where I suspect I will get banding. At least I will have the option to choose.
Shadow vs. Exposure
It appears that in Lightroom, using the shadow slider may show banding more readily than an adjustment with similar brightness that uses the exposure slider. However, if the version with the exposure slider is adjusted in other ways to look the same as the one with the shadow slider, then the amount of banding is similar.
Non-factors
I tested other factors and did not see a significant effect on banding from the use of Active D-Lighting, Liveview vs. viewfinder, sRGB vs. Adobe RGB, high ISO NR, long exposure NR.
Non-factors
I tested other factors and did not see a significant effect on banding from the use of Active D-Lighting, Liveview vs. viewfinder, sRGB vs. Adobe RGB, high ISO NR, long exposure NR.
There may be other factors but these are the ones I am aware of.
BANDING THERAPY
In this part, we'll talk about what to do when banding appears.
If banding does show up in your shot, the good news is that it can be mitigated in RawTherapee (thanks to Markku for the tip!), at the expense of some shadow detail. If you're not familiar with RawTherapee, hold off on googling it for a moment and check out the results first.
I used RawTherapee v4.0. I exported the problematic shot as a DNG, which RawTherapee was able to open.
BTW this was one of those shots that I took using 12-bit lossy compression before I found out the problem with doing that. Anyway, I noticed that the saturation and contrast were a little different (I suspect because LR uses custom profiles such as Adobe Standard, Camera Standard, etc. etc., which are not part of the metadata). I increased the saturation and contrast to match the Lightroom version a little more closely.
I zoomed in an area that I knew had banding in LR. Interestingly, in RT, the banding was much less noticeable.
Lightroom version (exported as a TIFF) with visible banding.
RawTherapee version with less visible banding.
Hold on, we're not done. RT has a debanding tool called line noise filter. Click on the Raw tab (it looks like a checkerboard) or use the keyboard shortcut Alt-R. Under 'Preprocessing,' you'll find line noise filter. What line noise filter does is disguise the banding by adding noise. As far as I can tell, it affects only the areas with the banding noise, leaving the clean parts of the image alone, so in that sense it is better than simply applying the grain effect to the whole image in Lightroom. Anyway, you should use as little of the filter as possible because the more of it you use, the more details you lose. Plus, at stronger levels, it creates artifacts on the edge between the noisy areas and clean areas.
Anyway, I started out with 1, then tried 10 and went upwards in increments of 10. When the banding was removed, I tried going down from that point by 5, etc. gradually identifying the minimum level. In this case I applied a filter level of 15. Here is the result:
And here are the complete images for comparison (click for full-resolution)
Lightroom version:
RawTherapee with line noise filter:
So there you have it. On the hopefully uncommon occasions where you have banding on the D5200 or D7100, RawTherapee is available to mitigate the banding. (Incidentally, I must say I really like the way RT rendered the highlights on the skin. I like it much better than how it was rendered in Lightroom.) BTW did you take my request not to google RawTherapee? That's because I wanted to save the best bit -- it's free! :D
RELATED POSTS
Nikon D7100 Hands-On Real World User Review
Importing D7100 Raw Files Into Lightroom
Nikon D7100 Low Light Teaser
Nikon D7100 FAQ and Helpful Links
Nikon D7100 Shadow Recovery
Nikon D7100 Real World Dynamic Range
Nikon D5200 and D7100 Band-Aid: Solutions for Banding
Sample of D7100 banding in a real world shot
If banding does show up in your shot, the good news is that it can be mitigated in RawTherapee (thanks to Markku for the tip!), at the expense of some shadow detail. If you're not familiar with RawTherapee, hold off on googling it for a moment and check out the results first.
I used RawTherapee v4.0. I exported the problematic shot as a DNG, which RawTherapee was able to open.
BTW this was one of those shots that I took using 12-bit lossy compression before I found out the problem with doing that. Anyway, I noticed that the saturation and contrast were a little different (I suspect because LR uses custom profiles such as Adobe Standard, Camera Standard, etc. etc., which are not part of the metadata). I increased the saturation and contrast to match the Lightroom version a little more closely.
I zoomed in an area that I knew had banding in LR. Interestingly, in RT, the banding was much less noticeable.
Lightroom version (exported as a TIFF) with visible banding.
RawTherapee version with less visible banding.
Hold on, we're not done. RT has a debanding tool called line noise filter. Click on the Raw tab (it looks like a checkerboard) or use the keyboard shortcut Alt-R. Under 'Preprocessing,' you'll find line noise filter. What line noise filter does is disguise the banding by adding noise. As far as I can tell, it affects only the areas with the banding noise, leaving the clean parts of the image alone, so in that sense it is better than simply applying the grain effect to the whole image in Lightroom. Anyway, you should use as little of the filter as possible because the more of it you use, the more details you lose. Plus, at stronger levels, it creates artifacts on the edge between the noisy areas and clean areas.
Anyway, I started out with 1, then tried 10 and went upwards in increments of 10. When the banding was removed, I tried going down from that point by 5, etc. gradually identifying the minimum level. In this case I applied a filter level of 15. Here is the result:
And here are the complete images for comparison (click for full-resolution)
Lightroom version:
RawTherapee with line noise filter:
So there you have it. On the hopefully uncommon occasions where you have banding on the D5200 or D7100, RawTherapee is available to mitigate the banding. (Incidentally, I must say I really like the way RT rendered the highlights on the skin. I like it much better than how it was rendered in Lightroom.) BTW did you take my request not to google RawTherapee? That's because I wanted to save the best bit -- it's free! :D
RELATED POSTS
Nikon D7100 Hands-On Real World User Review
Importing D7100 Raw Files Into Lightroom
Nikon D7100 Low Light Teaser
Nikon D7100 FAQ and Helpful Links
Nikon D7100 Shadow Recovery
Nikon D7100 Real World Dynamic Range
Nikon D5200 and D7100 Band-Aid: Solutions for Banding
Sample of D7100 banding in a real world shot
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
