2013: The Camera Year

Blockbuster

This year has witnessed an incredible range of very interesting camera releases (can you guess how many?), there are a lot of tidal shifts in the market, players that are becoming stronger, and others that are referred to as stagnant and old fashioned. I am not attempting to analyze the market and company strategies in this post, instead I will be thinking aloud, analyzing what is going on around, what to do regarding any further camera purchases, and where to head to. The more I think about the new camera releases in 2013, the more I get confused, so I decided to get a white paper and a pen, and jot it all down so I can be able to make a clear analysis. Hit the jump to continue reading, and be astounded with the sheer amount of cameras released in 2013.

Before I begin though, one word about the opening picture, this is my niece in the foreground, and my daughter at the back. I have been trying to emulate movie images and posters recently (as a result of seeing some beautiful cinematic-looking images, but more about that later), and this was one of my favorites. I will be posting another one midway.

Back to the cameras. I headed over to the internet to find out what cameras have been released this year, and I found dpreview's camera releases timeline very helpful, so this is where I started. I decided to skip any camera with a sensor smaller than 1/1.7" (the one found in Canon's G and S series cameras), so what you're going to see below are cameras with the following sensor sizes: (1/1.7", 2/3", 1", Micro Four Thirds, APS-C, Full Frame). I will write a very short description beside each camera, so here goes.

P.S. Cameras are sorted in ascending order by the release date, starting from Jan 2013 till Oct 2013.
P.P.S. ILC = Interchangeable Lens Camera, usually goes with a mirror-less compact camera.

1. Samsung NX300 (APS-C, 20MP, ILC, no VF)
2. Fuji X100S (APS-C, 16MP, 23mm f/2 fixed lens, hybrid VF)
3. Fuji X20 (2/3", 12 MP, 28-112mm f/2-f/2.8 fixed lens, OVF)
4. Nikon 1 S1 (1", 10 MP, ILC, no VF)
5. Nikon 1 J3 (1", 14 MP, ILC, no VF)
6. Sony NEX 3N (APS-C, 16MP, ILC, no VF)
7. Sony SLT A58 (APS-C, 20MP, DSLT, EVF)
8. Nikon D7100 (APS-C, 24MP, DSLR, OVF)
9. Nikon Coolpix A (APS-C, 16MP, 18.5mm f/2.8 fixed lens, no VF)
10. Canon 700D (APS-C, 18MP, DSLR, OVF)
11. Canon 100D (APS-C, 18MP, tiny DSLR, OVF)
12. Panasonic GF6 (MFT, 16MP, ILC, no VF)
13. Samsung NX1100 (APS-C, 20MP, ILC, no VF)
14. Ricoh GR (APS-C, 16MP, 18,3mm f/2.8 fixed lens, no VF)
15. Panasonic LF1 (1/1.7", 12MP, 28-200mm f/2-f/5.9 fixed lens, lousy EVF)
16. Panasonic G6 (MFT, 16MP, ILC, EVF)
17. Samsung NX2000 (APS-C, 20MP, ILC, no VF)
18. Olympus E-P5 (MFT, 16MP, ILC, no VF)
19. Leica X Vario (APS-C, 16MP, 28-70mm f/3.5-f/6.4 fixed lens, no VF)
20. Pentax K-500 (APS-C, 16 MP, DSLR, OVF)
21. Pentax K-50 (APS-C, 16 MP, DSLR, OVF)
22. Pentax Q7 (1/1.7", 12MP, 23-69mm f/2.8-f/4.5 fixed lens, no VF)
23. Galaxy NX (APS-C, 20MP, ILC, EVF, Android OS)
24. Fuji X-M1 (APS-C, 16MP, ILC, no VF)
25. Sony RX100 II (1", 20MP, 28-100mm f/1.8-f/4.9 fixed lens, no VF)
26. Sony RX1R (Full Frame, 24MP, 35mm f/2 fixed lens, no VF)
27. Canon 70D (APS-C, 20MP, DSLR, OVF)
28. Panasonic GX7 (MFT, 16MP, ILC, great EVF)
29. Canon G16 (1/1.7", 12MP, 28-140mm f/1.8-f/2.8 fixed lens, lousy OVF)
30. Canon S120 (1/1.7", 12MP, 24-120mm f/1.8-f/5.7 fixed lens, no VF)
31. Sony NEX 5T (APS-C, 16MP, ILC, no VF)
32. Sony Alpha A3000 (APS-C, 20MP, ILC, poor EVF)
33. Sony QX100 (1", 20MP, 28-100mm f/1.8-f/4.9 fixed lens, no VF, mobile phone add-on)
34. Olympus OM-D EM-1 (MFT, 16MP, ILC, best EVF)
35. Fuji X-A1 (APS-C, 16MP, ILC, no VF)
36. Nikon 1 AW (1", 14MP, ILC, no VF, waterproof)
37. Pentax K-3 (APS-C, 24MP, DSLR, OVF)
38. Nikon D610 (Full Frame, 24MP, DSLR, OVF)
39. Sony RX10 (1", 20MP, 24-200mm f/2.8 fixed lens, EVF)
40. Sony A7 (Full Frame, 24MP, ILC, EVF)
41. Sony A7R (Full Frame, 36MP, ILC, EVF)
42. Panasonic GM1 (MFT, 16MP, ILC, no VF, tiny)
43. Nikon D5300 (APS-C, 24MP, DSLR, OVF)
44. Fuji XQ1 (2/3", 12MP, 25-100mm f/1.8-f/4.9 fixed lens, no VF)
45. Fuji X-E2 (APS-C, 16MP, ILC, great EVF)

Olympus Stylus (1/1.7", 24-300mm fixed lens, EVF)?
Nikon DF (Digital Fusion) Hybrid (Full Frame, OVF, F-Mount, D600 AF)?

Can you believe that? 45 new cameras with large sensors released till now, and there are still two full months remaining in 2013. The rumors about the new Nikon full frame compact, and the Olympus Stylus are almost confirmed, it's just a matter of time, we'll see them in November.

Now let us do some quick stats, out of 45 new cameras:

• 10 have mirrors (DSLR/DSLT), 21 mirror-less ILCs, 14 fixed lens compacts (except for the RX10).
• 4 have Full Frame sensors, 23 have APS-C sesnors, 6 have MFT sensors, 6 have 1" sensors, 2 have 2/3" sensors, 4 have 1/1.7" sensors.
• The most common APS-C sensors are 16MP (variance from 16MP to 24MP).
• 23 have built-in view finders, 11 of them are optical (9 DSLRs + Fuji X20 + Canon G16), and 12 are electronic.
• A handful of the ones without a built-in VF have the option of an accessory EVF, or even an accessory OVF (Sony RX1R).

Cinema Style?

And now is the time for some quick thoughts on a few select cameras and systems, this is where I think in a loud voice.

1/1.7" AND 2/3" SENSORS

These cameras were great and sought after two years ago, maybe even one year ago. But with today's tiny and much larger sensor cameras (RX100, Olympus PEN, Panasonic GM1, fixed lens APS-C or FF like the Nikon Coolpix A or the Sony RX1), they are not the rave anymore. Don't get me wrong, they still produce great images, and with a camera like the Canon G16 with a fixed f/1.8-f/2.8 zoom lens, it is a great choice. There are people (even proffesionals) that still buy them and use them, but for me, having owned a G11 and used it's RAW files, they are behind the larger sensors.


FIXED LENS APS-C OR FULL FRAME

Doesn't make sense to me because of the 35mm equivalent focal length, no matter how great the camera and the lens are. I said before that I wish Sony made their RX1 with a 50mm f/1.4 lens, and that would be something I'd buy and use exclusively (I know I can sort of do this with the A7 and the Zeiss 55 f/1.8, but I'll keep this discussion for later).

Famous cameras in this category are the Fuji X100/S, Sony RX1/R and to a less degree, the Nikon Coolpix A and the Ricoh GR. However they make sense to street photographers and people who make use of such a wide focal length, not me.


DSLR CAMERAS

After living with the OM-D EM-5 and great small lenses for almost a year, I have lost all feelings and attractions towards DSLRs. Whenever I handle my brother's 60D, it feels too big and bulky, and when I don't see the playback of the picture in the viewfinder, I am a little taken back, when I don't see the blinking highlights and blocked shadows when composing, it feels ancient.

That's not to say that I don't miss my 5D Mark III when I'm shooting my running kids and the EM-5 fails to track them, or when I want to completely eradicate a busy background with the 50mm f1/.4 lens. As I see it now, the main attractions for DSLRs is that they are getting better and better sensors, they have a huge range of established lenses to pick from, they produce great video footage, and they are becoming more affordable at the same time. Canon's 100D is a good try in providing the DSLR experience but in a small package.

As I see it now, MFT sensors are competing with APS-C sensors image quality wise, they are not behind anymore, and the DOF difference is not really that different, and most MFT prime lenses have exceptional image quality starting from wide-open. That puts an APS-C DSLR out of my radar forever. However, that being said, the falling prices of full frame DSLRs, along with the increasing prices of high-end MFT cameras are really appealing. Assuming that size and weight are not an issue, wouldn't you be inclined to get a $1,400 Nikon D600 or a $1,500 Canon 6D over the $1,400 Olympus OM-D EM-1? Just for that full frame look? Tough choice.


FUJI X, SONY NEX AND SAMSUNG NX (ALL APS-C CAMERAS)

Great performers, great image quality, interchangeable lenses and comes in a small package. What's not to like? The lens line-up, that's what. Fuji has produced very good lenses, and are doing good work developing more, but right now, there are like 5 lenses, and if they don't cover what you need you're out of luck. The Fujis also have that famous X-Trans sensor, the internet says it has very high quality, but there are RAW issues when used with Adobe's Camera RAW engine, which is what I use for 100% of my photos.

The same lack-of-lenses argument goes for the Sony NEX, I've been following Kirk Tuck's adventures with the NEX series (BTW, he sold all of them after a long love story), and before I decided on buying my EM-5, I was really considering the NEX 6 (as it was the cheapest one with an EVF), but the lack of lens choices, the weird flash hot-shoe compatibility issues and my general feeling that Sony won't be in a hurry to improve the issues, I decided to head to MFT instead. And now Sony have ditched the NEX series completely.

As for the Samsung NX, funny enough, Kirk Tuck is testing them out for us, he's the one who brought it to my attention. I didn't notice before that Samsung had an APS-C interchangeable lens camera. He tested the finder-less NX300 and the Android powered Galaxy NX, and is reporting they have great image quality, and that the 18-55mm kit lens is very good. However, lens choices for these cameras are very limited, and quite expensive in my opinion. I had a chance to shoot a friend's NX1000 with the kit lens, and it is erm.. bad.


SONY A7/R FULL FRAME MIRRORLESS GOODNESS

Sony is a mega electronics company, and they used to make (still make) great weird gadgets, I have always lusted after their products in the 80s and the 90s. So when they came up with the RX1 35mm f/2 fixed lens full frame camera, the internet went berserk, and despite the lack of a built-in VF and the astronomical $2,800 price, it sold very well and was praised in the reviews.

And now they've done it again. What was the hottest ILC camera on the internet a few months back? The Olympus EP-5 with the exceptional VF-4 viewfinder. Then Panasonic released the cheaper, better looking, tilt-able EVF GX7, and the EP-5 sort of went down the drain, as if it was never announced, I can't remember reading a blog about the EP-5 one month after the GX7 release. Next comes the $1,400 Olympus EM-1 and the whole world applauds, but the GX7 didn't have anything to fear because of the $400 price differential. A lot of people pre-ordered the EM-1.

Then Sony comes a little late to the party, bag in hand, shows everyone two full frame mirrorless cameras that are the same size as the Olympus EM-5 and (sorry for the expression) pisses on the party, or at least that's how it felt when they announced the $1,700 and $2,300 prices for the 24MP A7 and the 36MP A7R respectively. The internet went even more berserk, people were cancelling their EM-1 orders, and pre-ordering the Sonys.

For $300 more than an EM-1 you can get a full frame mirrorless camera that is smaller in size, has a built-in VF that is quite good. Who wouldn't want that? The crazy thing is that the entry prices are much much cheaper than the big boy full frames, the Canon 5D3 and the Nikon D800, and the 24MP A7 is even cheaper than bot the Canon 6D and the Nikon D610! Want to know a more crazy thing? The Sony A7 plus either the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 or 55mm f/1.8 is cheaper than the Sony RX1R. And when Sony released the A7, it claimed that it focuses much faster than the RX1R, now that's a company that's innovating, not afraid of competing with its self and not crippling it's own products to make you buy another of its products.

So after all this gushing, am I going to buy one? Nope, won't happen I'm afraid. For starters, it is a very new product that is not available yet, and is destined to create a huge tidal wave in the market, during which I would prefer to be eating popcorn and watching the market go crazy. Then there are the lenses, the only interesting one right now is the $1,000 55mm f/1.8 Zeiss, I'd rather wait and see, remember, it's Sony we're talking about here, they have no issues killing or creating a whole eco-system whenever they feel like it. And then there's the Nikon DF that shall be announced by the 6th of November, the key advantage I see here is the F-Mount, with all their lenses available for immediate use. We'll see.


MICRO FOUR THIRDS

And I finally reach my current system of choice. The EM-5 is serving me really well, and I'm extremely happy with the images I am getting, if you haven't seen my 43rumors article, please do, it is the perfect summary of how I feel about the MFT compared to owning APS-C and FF DSLRs.

I have posted before about the GX7, and my expectations from the EM-1 before, so I'm not going to repeat them, but I've not commented on the EM-1 yet. I still have doubts about the looks of the EM-1 leather finish (top view looks even sexier than the EM-5 though), it just looks odd in the photos or the videos I've seen, maybe it looks better in hand, but that will have to be a leap of faith. I have promised myself since the day I bought my EM-5 and discovered the faulty eye-sensor that I would buy it's successor. The EM-1 is not the EM-5's direct successor, and at $1,400, it is expensive for a MFT camera, so I am not yet sure I am ready to buy one, especially with all the shifting in the market. Maybe the $1,700 full frame Sony A7 will force the EM-1 to lower its price? I have a feeling that Olympus might quickly drop $200 from the EM-1's price after the holidays, or even earlier, but that's just a hunch based on zero facts.

As for why I'd want an EM-1, here are the reasons in the order of their importance:

1. Focus tracking that works, and 6.5 fps with continuous focus, 10 fps without.
2. The best EVF ever, detailed, true colors, large magnification (same as FF DSLR).
3. Better ergonomics and customizable buttons.
4. Wi-fi, would be very useful during product shoots, where I can show the pictures on my iPad immediately.
5. Better video options, mic input, levels, someone said you can touch to focus during recording.
6. Better LCD resolution, the EM-5 weakness appears at 100% magnification.
7. Larger buffer, the EM-5 gets filled up in two seconds after a 9 fps burst.
8. Better IBIS and focusing speed.
9. Slightly better image quality.

So, unless sudden GAS hits me (with my friend traveling to NYC mid-November, it might just happen), I won't be getting the EM-1 that soon. We should hear about an EM-5 successor next year.


Now that I've said all I have, what do you think?

P.P.P.S. I have not had time to proof-read the post, so please excuse any mistakes, it took me a long time to prepare and write this post.

Read More

Nikon D600 vs. Nikon D7100 comparison (daylight)

While I'm still analyzing the D600 and D7100 low light shots, here are more comparison shots between the D600 and D7100, this time in daylight.  For this test, I used the Sigma 35 1.4 on the D7100 and the Tamron 28-75 (at around 52mm) on the D600.  I know, your first reaction is that it's not a fair comparison because the Sigma is considered one of the sharpest lenses, whereas the Tamron is sharp in the center but it's not in the same league.



Nonetheless, I believe the "perceptual megapixels" of the two combinations is probably very close:
Nikon D600 + Tamron 28-75 = 12 Pmp.
Nikon D7000 + Sigma 35 1.4 = 11 Pmp.
Nikon D7100 + Sigma 35 1.4 = ?? Pmp.  My guess is it's not much higher than 11 (see why here -- under "Sharpness").

To keep the comparison more fair, I suggest looking primarily at the center area of each shot (the Tamron loses sharpness as you move toward the edges and corners).

Regarding the shooting conditions, the sky was cloudy and the sun was moving in and out of the clouds, hence the difference in exposures.  BTW you'll notice in the EXIF that the D7100 files are from the "D5200".  That's because I had to change the metadata to import them into Lightroom (see here).

Anyway here are the shots (full resolution available):

SET 1:

d7100

d600



SET 2:


d7100

d600

SET 3:


d7100

d600

SET 4:


d7100

d600

SET 5:

d7100

d600

OBSERVATIONS:
Sharpness.  To me, the sharpness looks about evenly matched.  This is not expected for an APS-C camera, which usually is less sharp than a full frame camera, all other factors being equal (see here). Of course, the lens makes a huge difference here.  If I had used a better lens on the D600, such as the Nikon 24-70, the D600 shot would have looked sharper (the Tamron is nowhere close to maximizing the D600's sensor).

Tonality.  The tonality is quite different between these two cameras.  The highlights on the D7100 are brighter and the shadows in the D600 are deeper, even on shots with identical exposures.  Initially I thought it could be the change in light conditions, but the pattern is very consistent and the sharpness of the shadows are identical which implies that the light conditions were the same.  Plus, if it's due to the change in light conditions, I would think that the D7100 shot sometimes shows the reverse pattern. But nope - the tonality is consistent in these shots.

I am wondering if this means that the D7100's tonal curve has a longer, softer shoulder (like the Fuji S5 - reviewed here), a quality which I like because it makes the shot more similar to that of negative film.  By contrast, the D600's tone curve is known to have almost no shoulder (see DPReview's analysis here) even when Active D-Lighting is turned on.  In other words, with the D600, you will see highlights disappear suddenly when they exceed the sensor's highlight range.  If indeed the D7100 has a longer shoulder, then highlight rolloff will be smoother and it will not be very obvious when the highlight has disappeared.

Indeed, that appears to be the case.  If you look at Set 2, specifically at the sunlit portion of the top of the boat, the D7100 looks like it has more delicate and natural-looking highlights.  (See the similarity to the Fuji S5's rendering of the porcelain bowl in our review here.)  In part 2 of my D7100 review, you'll see this as well in shots of people.

To some extent either shot can be made to look more similar to the other (as long as the highlights are not blown during capture), but it is interesting to see the cameras' natural tendencies.

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

Read More

Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels

Last year, I had a chance to visit the cathedral of Los Angeles, the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels, which has amazing post-modern architecture.  Here are some photos I took (click on any photo for a higher-res version).

The windows are made of alabaster

Those are not paintings... they're tapestries! (i.e. they're woven, not painted)

The cathedral's park / playground

EQUIPMENT USED
Nikon D3 (reviewed here)
Tokina 10-17 Fisheye (reviewed here) Note: the Tokina 10-17 is designed for APS-C cameras but can be used on full frame at 14.5mm or longer.
Fuji S5 Pro (reviewed here)
Tokina 11-16 2.8 (reviewed here)

Read More

Nikon D600 vs. Fuji S5 Pro highlight dynamic range

Many recent DSLRs from Nikon have been tested to show a very wide highlight range.  For example, DPReview reports that the Nikon D800 has as much as 5 stops highlight range with Active D-Lighting at Extra High.

The D600 looks to have promising highlight range.  The D600 has been tested by DXO to have a dynamic range similar to that of the D800.  In my own testing, the D600 also appears to have a fairly wide highlight range, based on the latitude I have seen for recovering highlights.

In this post, I compare the highlight dynamic range of the Nikon D600 with that of the Fuji S5 Pro, a unique DSLR that has unparalleled highlight range.  I wanted to see whether the Nikon D600 has met or even surpassed the S5's highlight dynamic range.

TEST

I setup several objects of varying degrees of specularity (reflectiveness) indoors.  I prepared three hotshoe flashes - one SB-800 on-camera acting as a master, another SB-800 as a slave, and a YN-565 as a second slave.  All flashes were firing at the same manual power level, bounced toward the ceiling.  I then took shots of the objects at these settings:

- flash only at 1/4 power

- flash only at 1/2 power

- flash only at full power

- full power flash + ambient normally exposed

- full power flash + ambient +1 exposure

All shots were taken at base ISO (100 for both the D600 and the S5) in raw, converted to DNG for processing in Lightroom 4.

NOTE:  In the case of the D600, there is no raw support yet from Adobe so I used the workaround of tricking Lightroom into thinking that the D600 files were from a Nikon D4.  Blogged here.  The resulting files are cropped.  Not only that, the crop is from the top left corner therefore the cameras' perspectives are slightly different.  Moreover, no one knows whether the D600 files with true raw support will be the same or better than these "fake" D600 DNG files.

FUJI S5 RESULTS

First, I took a baseline shot that was deliberately underexposed so that it would fall within the dynamic range of both cameras.  I removed the ambient (100 ISO, 1/200, f/5.6), and fired all three flashes at 1/4 power.

As you can see, detail is visible everywhere.  For example, even the specular highlights of the ribbons are not clipped - they have color.  The metal disc held by the bear has visible detail even with the specular highlight.

Having established a baseline, I then took the progressively brighter shots.  I first examined the brightest shot:

I applied a correction of -3EV to make it easier to observe whether the detail was retained:

It appears that the S5 was able to retain detail everywhere.  I was not able to exceed the S5's highlight range with this test.

D600 RESULTS
As with the S5, I took 5 test shots.  In the first two shots, the D600 clearly was able to retain all detail.

I took a look at the middle shot (flash only at full power):

I applied a -3EV correction to make the details in the specular highlights more observable:

It appears all detail was retained, though the specular highlight of the red ribbon seems almost ready to lose color.

I took a look a the fourth shot.

With a -4EV correction:

It looks like a little detail was lost in the metal disc, in the red ribbon's specular highlights, and above the bear's nose and left paw (camera right):

I also looked at the fifth shot.  As expected, a little more detail was lost:

ACTIVE D-LIGHTING
I also tested whether Active D-Lighting would improve the D600's result.  Note: the slave flash positions got moved slightly by accident.  Anyway, here is the 5th shot with Active D-Lighting set to Extra High:

With the same correction applied above:

It appears to have more detail than the 5th shot above.  Though not as good as the 3rd shot, the ADL might even be better than the 4th shot, though there is a lot of lost detail above the bear's nose.  Because the flash positions got moved I can't be absolutely certain.  My son was pulling me away to play with me before I could re-run the tests for ADL.

CONCLUSION:
Clearly, the aging Fuji S5 Pro still has substantially more highlight range than the Nikon D600.  Because I was not able to reach the S5's limits, I can't say exactly how much better the S5 Pro's highlight range is compared to the D600.  Without Active D-Lighting, the S5's highlight range advantage over the D600 appears to be well over 1 stop.  With Active D-Lighting at Extra-High, the S5's highlight advantage is reduced but I couldn't say for sure by how much.

Please recall the flaws I mentioned at the beginning.  I plan to retest this when the D600 gains real raw support, and this time I will try harder to find the S5's limit, and will test ADL more rigorously.

Read More

A Lighting Opportunity You Shouldn't Miss

The spot above shows one of my favorite kinds of photo opportunities.  It allows me to get dramatic lighting effortlessly.  Hit the jump for a few samples.

BACKLIGHTING
I love backlighting because it emphasizes the subjects and allows them to stand out from the background.  The kind of backlighting I like best for this purpose is one where the light is not directly behind the subject, but is instead above and behind the subject (sometimes called separation light or shoulder light).

To get that kind of light with flash normally requires using at least a tall light stand, if not a boom stand (so that the light stand won't be visible in the shot), so it's not often that I have the chance to shoot with it.

One of the few occasions when I was able to add separation light to a casual portrait.
(Funny how fat I was back then.  Thank goodness for Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu!)

Fortunately, sometimes nature does the work for us.  When the sun is at a sufficiently low angle (not directly overhead), I often position the subject to use the sun as backlight.

The effect is most noticeable when there is a dark background, which makes the separation light prominent.  That's why I like areas like the spot at the beginning of the story.  It is a backlit area next to a shaded area.  As a further bonus, the dark background tends to reduce the dynamic range of the scene (compared to a backlit shot without a shade).  Finally, if the backlit area is a light-toned surface such as concrete, it can reflect light into the subject, adding a bit of fill.  In short, instant studio-style lighting, without any effort at all.

On this particular morning, it was a "costume day" at our kids' school, and my wife asked me to take a shot of the kids.  I looked out at the backyard, saw the shaded and backlit area and did an internal fist pump. :)  I chose to use the Fuji S5 and Sigma 50-150.

To position the subject, I have the subject in the shaded area, facing away from the light, close to the sunlit portion so that they're casting a shadow.  The part of the subject that is casting a shadow will be the part that has a separation light.  It could be the whole subject, or just the head, or anywhere in between.  (BTW the light doesn't have to be behind the subject.  It can be at an angle for effect.)  And here's what that light did for my shot:

When the subject has hair with volume (e.g. frizzy or curly hair), or is wearing something translucent, then the effect is even better.

EXPOSURE
One challenge with backlit shots like this is that a camera may be fooled into underexposure.  The correct exposure will depend on your camera and your intent.  Some cameras will seriously underexpose backlit shots, while others will do fine.  In this case, I was using the Fuji S5, which has a tendency to underexpose.  With that tendency in mind, I set the exposure compensation at +1.3EV but when I processed the shot, I found that I had to add another +0.85EV.

FLARE
Something else to watch out for with a strong backlight is flare.  Flare can reduce the contrast of the image, making it look washed-out.  Depending on your lens, you may also see ghosting.  To minimize these issues, use a lens hood (or use your hand to shade your lens) and if you have a choice, consider using a longer focal length.  Alternatively, instead of avoiding flare, you can allow flare into the shot for effect.

RELATED POSTS
Using Midday Sunlight
Turnabout is Fair Play
Fill Flash: Summer Pool Party

--

Happy Labor Day and have a great weekend!

(BTW, did you notice anything different about the post-processing of these shots?  That will be something I will discuss soon.)

Read More

Choosing the Exposure for Dynamic Range

Over the weekend, we visited Knott's Berry Farm, one of the first theme parks in the U.S.  What I like about Knott's is that the lines are much shorter than those of Disneyland therefore we get to experience more rides within the same amount of time.  I also think Knott's has a more interesting variety of rides for young children like our 5-year old, and has more thrill rides (though not as many as Magic Mountain).  Although the production value is not as high as that of Disneyland, it is still quite high.

During our visit the heat was intense, reaching 95°F (35°C), just one degree below the all-time record of 96 for that area, and 10 degrees hotter than the average for this time of the year.  With the sun blazing overhead, the dynamic range was very wide.  I used two different exposure strategies to deal with the dynamic range.

PROTECTING HIGHLIGHTS
When the ambient is very bright, it is very easy to exceed the highlight range of a digital camera and blow the highlights.  I used to not care so much about it myself.  In the shot below, you can see that the highlights from the sunlight-as-kicker have no detail at all.

However, when I started learning about shooting film, I became more attentive to highlights. With print film (negative film) I have tremendous latitude for exposing highlights, and it's almost impossible to blow highlights.  With digital, once a certain threshold of light is reached, the sensor can't record any more details, and all I suddenly get is white (i.e. blown highlights).  Blown highlights are therefore one indicator that the image was shot digitally.

(BTW there's nothing wrong per se with looking digital.  It's just a personal preference.  I grew up during a time when digital video was used mostly for lower-budget movies and shows.)

On this occasion I was using two cameras, the Fuji S5 Pro and the Nikon D90.  They have different amounts of shadow range and highlight range therefore I used different exposure strategies.  In the shots below, I took some test shots to show the effect of the exposure strategies.  For the S5, I took a baseline shot using its 'standard' dynamic range mode, and another shot at the same exposure but this time activating its full 400% dynamic range (you can ignore the absence of a highlight on the neck of the baseline shot -- the sun was going down and a shadow fell on the cheek and neck of the mannequin head).  I also took a pair of shots with the Nikon D90: first a baseline shot with a normal exposure, and a second shot that was deliberately underexposed by two stops.  BTW these were at ISO 400, the widest dynamic range for the D90.

In postprocessing I adjusted the shots to recover the highlights and in the case of the underexposed D90 shot, to normalize the exposure as well.  Here is the result:

With the S5's standard mode, there was almost no highlight recovered.  Conversely, with the 400% dynamic range mode, all highlights were fully recovered.  There was not a single pixel that was blown.

With the D90's normal exposure, I was able to recover a few of the highlights but you can see large patches that were blown (the temple, cheekbone and the entire side of the neck).  However, with the deliberately underexposed shot, most of the highlights could be recovered.  There is only a patch of lost highlight near the base of the neck.  

Full resolution S5 400% DR with adjustment (click to download)

Full resolution D90 -2EV with adjustment (click to download)

The downside of this deliberate underexposure is the greater amount of noise in the midtone and shadow areas (after all, I needed to increase exposure 2 stops in postprocessing to compensate for the underexposure).  For me, I usually prefer having extra noise (and using noise reduction) than losing relevant highlights.

---

Back to Knott's Berry Farm.  The sky was cloudless for most of the afternoon, so with the S5, I used manual exposure and set the exposure for the shadow.  Here's a sample shot, straight-out-of-the-cam:

Looking only at the LCD screen, the bright patch of pavement might seem worrying (IIRC it was blinking), but I was confident that most, if not all, of the highlights would be recoverable with the S5, so I concerned myself with getting an adequate exposure of shadow areas to minimize noise.

And here's the adjusted shot (not a single pixel was lost).

As for the Nikon D90, I set the exposure to avoid losing highlights as much as possible.  First, when judging the exposure I paid attention to the blinkies and histogram, dialing down exposure as needed.  Second, I used the 'Extra High' setting of Active D-Lighting, which meant that the camera would underexpose slightly to avoid losing highlight detail.  For JPEGs, it would also boost the shadow and midtone areas to compensate for the underexposure.   However, I was shooting raw, so the boosting would be done in postprocessing.  Here's a sample shot, SOOC:

If I looked only at the LCD screen, it would look very underexposed.  However, I knew that for my purposes, this was the 'correct' exposure.  Here's how the shot looked after adjustment in post-processing.

Most of the highlights were preserved.  There is only a small patch lost, near my wife's elbow.

Here are a few more shots from our visit.  I used two lenses, the Tokina 10-17 fisheye (paired with the S5) and the Nikkor 28-105 3.5-4.5 AF-D (with the D90).

For when my kids are a little older

Knott's has a Peanuts-themed area for younger children, Camp Snoopy

A junior version of the elevator drop

We didn't spend as much time as we wanted because of the scorching heat, but we still had fun.

Read More