5 Tips for Using Flash Outdoors

I like using bounce flash because it gives me soft and directional light when used with proper technique.  Outdoors, however, bouncing flash is not so easy, particularly when it's bright and sunny.  Those were the circumstances when I took the shot above.  What flash technique did I use here (or did I not use flash at all)?  Take a guess!  What technique would you have used here?

Answer: I used direct on-camera flash with no modifiers.  (cue the thunder and lightning)

When I first learned about lighting, one of the first things that was drilled into me was that direct on-camera flash is terrible. The light quality is hard (because of the small size of the speedlight), flat and unnatural (because the light is coming from the camera's direction).  I've taken some extreme measures to use anything but direct on-camera flash, sometimes using a handheld umbrella to soften the light and control its direction.

However, there are times when using a direct on-camera flash is perfectly fine.  One such instance is when you are outdoors and there's no place from which to bounce a flash.

In the shot above and the ones below, that's exactly what I did - I used an on-camera flash pointed directly forward, but in my opinion, the use of the flash is not obtrusive and improves the images.

You may be wondering: it's bright enough, so why use flash in the first place under these circumstances?

1. Shadow detail.  When taking photos outdoors in bright sunlight, the sunlight often casts deep shadows.  Using flash, we can illuminate those shadows to bring out relevant details that would otherwise be harder to see.

Without flash - faces in shadow

With flash

2. More saturated backgrounds.  Another reason to use flash is to get more saturated backgrounds.  When your subject is in shade, you can expose for the subject but the background, which is not in shade, will then become overexposed and washed out, just like the trees in the sample below.

Without flash - washed out background

With flash - more saturated background

Some tips to make the best use of flash outdoors:

1. Be aware of the direction of the ambient light and use it as key or rim.  It's still a good idea to use lighting techniques to show the subject's form.  One way to do this when using direct on-camera flash to use ambient light as a key or rim light by carefully positioning the subject (or waiting for the subject to move into the right position).

2. Control the intensity of the flash and use it as fill.  This is a corollary from the previous point.  When flash is acting as fill, it has to have a lower intensity than the ambient light that is acting as key or rim.  Otherwise, if they had the same intensity, the shaping effect of the ambient light will be negated.  Moreover, if the fill is just as bright as the key (or rim), it makes the use of the flash more obvious.

To control the flash intensity with TTL flash, you decrease flash exposure compensation (sometimes though the system is smart enough to know that the flash is acting as fill and will therefore decrease the flash exposure automatically).  See the TTL Flash Tutorial.

3. To minimize shadows, avoid having the subject next to objects.  One way the use of direct on-camera flash becomes obvious is when the subject casts shadows from the flash.  First, the on-camera flash shadow doesn't have the same direction as the ambient light.  Second, the flash direction is from the camera's axis (or close to it) which is an unnatural direction for light (you could try to create the sense of direct frontal light from sunset, but if that's your intent you should gel the flash).

4.  Use an external flash.  A popup flash is closer to the axis but is limited to the sync speed (thus requiring narrow apertures in bright conditions).  Using an external flash allows high speed sync, which in turn allows you to use wide apertures for shallow depth of field.  As an extra benefit, the use of flash becomes a little harder to detect because most people are less accustomed to seeing a shallow depth of field in flash-lit photos in bright conditions.

5. Finally, one more way to disguise the use of flash is to clone out specular highlights.

Unedited shot - note the specular highlights on the posts.

Edited shot - specular highlights cloned out

RELATED ARTICLES
Fill Flash: Summer Pool Party
Turnabout is Fair Play

Read More

Do It All at f/2.8: the Tamron 28-105 2.8

The fast standard zoom with a 35mm equivalent of around 24-70mm is generally considered one of the most versatile lenses.  There are photographers who say that they can shoot a whole wedding with that one lens.  You may want to know that there's one lens that can cover an even wider range of shots: the Tamron 28-105 f/2.8, the only lens of its kind to cover the entire range of 28mm to 105mm at a constant 2.8 aperture.

The SP AF Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 LD Aspherical IF is a full frame lens available in Canon, Nikon, and adaptall mounts.  Note: the adaptall mount has limited functions (for example, it is only manual focus).  The Tamron 28-105 has been discontinued for a while now.  It originally sold for around $849 in 1997.  These days it's available used anywhere from around $250 to $650.

This lens replaced the Tamron 35-105 2.8.  There were two versions of the Tamron 28-105.  The earlier version had "Tamron" written around the zoom ring. The latter version has a zoom ring with ribs instead of Tamron written on it.  The lens I have is the latter version.

Specifications at a glance:

• filter size: 82mm
• 15 elements in 13 groups (Source: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=242)
• minimum length (without the hood): ~5 inches
• maximum length (without the hood): ~7 inches
• weight: 880 grams
• minimum focal distance: varies from 0.44 meters (1.44 ft.) to 0.50 meters (1.64 ft.) depending on the focal length
• minimum aperture: f/22
• number of aperture blades: 9.  At f/2.8, the aperture looks perfectly round.

This lens is larger than the usual standard zoom, which is expected given that it is a full frame lens that covers such a wide zoom range and has a wide aperture.  Its body is wider than even the Nikkor 28-70 2.8D I used to have.  It uses an 82mm filter size.  When extended to its maximum focal length, it is about 7 inches long without the hood, longer than even a Sigma 50-150 2.8 (which is around 5.5 inches) and just an inch shorter than a Nikon 70-200 VR II.  I don't like to put it next to my Tokina 10-17 because it gives the latter nightmares.

The 28-105 when extended.  An easy target for male enhancement jokes.

The lens body is plastic but appears reasonably well constructed.  I don't find any parts that are wiggly or anything but smooth.  Even though it's plastic, it's heavier than your average lens, only slightly lighter than the all-metal Nikkor 24-70 2.8G.  However, I wouldn't say it's too heavy given its zoom range and aperture.

Features:

-  The Tamron 28-105 has an anti-slip torque mechanism to prevent lens creep.  Without the anti-slip in use, the lens will extend under its own weight while I'm walking around (though not from simply being on a tripod).  To engage the anti-slip mode, you simply pull the zoom ring toward the camera body (see the shot above with the lens extended - the anti-slip mode label is shown just above the zoom ring).  Once the anti-slip mode is engaged, the zoom becomes harder to rotate, thus preventing zoom creep.

- Internal focus.  Stationary filter ring regardless of focusing action.

- Low dispersion glass to reduce chromatic aberration.

- Aperture ring.  This is useful for changing the aperture on the fly when taking videos, or when using the lens with an older [film] camera.

aperture ring

Since there isn't a lot of technical information about this lens, I've decided to review it in a little more detail by comparing it to the king of the hill for Nikon, the 24-70 2.8G.  I'm not implying that the Tamron 28-105 2.8 is a substitute for the 24-70.  They have too many differences such as price and zoom range, but the 24-70 sample is intended as the "control" insofar as it's the best lens I have at the most similar zoom range.

I did three comparisons:
- the complete frame to show vignetting, distortion, and image quality at normal viewing sizes;
- 100% crop from the center
- 100% crop from closer to the border (though not literally the extreme corner)
I used manual flash on a light stand and shot at sync speed. I refocused the camera each time I adjusted the focal length.  In the case of the Tamron at 35mm and 50mm, I used manual focusing with live view for perfect focusing (my first set at those focal lengths were not correctly focused).  The Nikkor 24-70 hasn't had micro-focus adjustment yet.

TEST 1:
Here is a slideshow comparing the Tamron 28-105 to the Nikon.  If you prefer, you can click on the link to the web album instead.  First, you'll see the Tamron shot, then the Nikon shot.  You'll see a comparison at f/2.8, then 4.0 then 5.6, at the following focal lengths: 105mm, 85mm, 70mm, 50mm, 35mm, 28mm and 24mm.  For 105mm and 85mm, only the Tamron is shown.  For 24mm, only the Nikon is shown.


TEST 2:
Test 2 is the same as test 1 except that I'm comparing 100% crops from the center of the frame.  Web album here.



TEST 3:
Test 2 is the same as test 1 except that I'm comparing 100% crops from outside the center of the frame.  Web album here.



Observations:

• 105mm and 85mm: The Tamron has decent sharpness even wide open.  There is significant vignetting that is mitigated as the lens is stopped down.  There is slight pincushion distortion.
• 70mm: The Tamron is less sharp wide open than at 105mm or 85mm.  It improves as it's stopped down.  At f/4.0 it is slightly less sharp than the Nikon at f/2.8.  The Tamron has less vignetting than the Nikon at 2.8.  At f/4.0, the vignetting is about the same although the Tamron is a bit better.  At f/5.6, the Nikon has less vignetting than the Tamron.  The Tamron has slight pincushion distortion.
• 50mm: Wide open, the Tamron is not sharp anymore, although sharpness improves significantly at f/4.0.  The Tamron has less vignetting than the Nikon at the apertures tested, particularly at f/2.8 and f/4.0.  The Tamron has very slight pincushion distortion.
• 35mm: Wide open, the Tamron is noticeably soft.  Sharpness improves significantly again at f/4.0.  The Tamron has less vignetting than the Nikon at the apertures tested, particularly at f/2.8 and f/4.0.  The Tamron has no noticeable distortion at 35mm.
• 28mm: Wide open, the Tamron is soft, although a bit sharper than at 35mm.  At 2.8 and 4.0 the Tamron appears to be sharper than the Nikon (focusing error?).  At 5.6, the Tamron is about the same sharpness as the Nikon.  In terms of vignetting, the Tamron and Nikon are more similar than at other focal lengths.  The Tamron vignetting is more pronounced than the Nikon at the edges, though the Nikon has vignetting that covers a larger percentage of the frame.  At 28mm, the Tamron has some moustache distortion.

CHROMATIC ABERRATION
The Tamron doesn't have a lot of chromatic aberration.  It's generally low enough that it can usually be automatically removed in Lightroom 4.

On the other hand, when shooting wide open at around 50mm, there is sometimes a soft glowing appearance around some bright highlights in the transitional area between being in focus and not in focus.  Here's an example:

Radioactive shirt?  No, it's just the Tamron's glow (45mm, f/2.8)

Note that there is a glow around the sunlit part of my son's orange shirt, and around the sunlit part of his hair.  But the part of the shirt and hair that are in shade don't have the glow.  There is also no glow on the sunlight on my daugther's arm or knuckles because they are closer to being in focus.

The glow is not the usual kind of spherical aberration because it only affects highlights and can appear anywhere in the frame (it's just as apparent at the center as at the edges).  It's not coma because it's omnidirectional (as opposed to the glow pointing in a particular direction).  Rather, it appears this effect is called "halation."

Here's another sample:

Note the glow around my son's right arm and shoulder.

By contrast, compare this shot, which has no glow under similar lighting conditions (in this case, because it's at 35mm).

34mm f/2.8

BOKEH

Reasonably smooth except in the transition area, which has some outlining.

Front and rear bokeh (105mm 2.8 SOOC)

FLARE RESISTANCE

OK except when there is a bright light source within or near the frame, in which case there is ghosting and a significant reduction in contrast.

FOCUSING
The version I have is for Nikon and does not have a built-in autofocus motor therefore focusing speed relies to some extent on the camera body on which it's mounted.  On my D3 it focused about as fast as the silent-wave motor-equipped Nikkor 28-70, i.e., autofocus was fast.  Focusing was fast enough that I was able to get usable (but not perfect) focus on continuous AF with our tot running toward me.  However, with low contrast subjects in dim light, it had a harder time focusing and hunted a bit.

Continuous AF (105mm 2.8 SOOC)

REAL WORLD SHOTS
Now that we've seen test shots, how does the lens perform in the real world?  Here are examples at various focal lengths (you can click on the photos to bring up the downloadable 1600pix versions).  Let's start at 28mm.

28mm 2.8

The focus point here was wrong - it was on the girl with the long black hair, but there is a good amount of detail even at this soft spot of the Tamron.

At 35mm:

35mm 2.8 SOOC

We saw from the tests that the Tamron was soft at 50mm f/2.8.  In the real world, here's what it looks like:

50mm 2.8 SOOC

And here's a 100% crop.  The texture on his shirt and some of the facial hairs are visible.  Not bad considering this is as soft as it gets.

100% crop

And another sample at around 50mm (this one is at 48mm) with sharpening applied.

48mm 2.8

Stopped down to f/4.0, the sharpness is not bad at all.

45mm 4.0

And stopped down further to f/5.6 it is fairly sharp.

50mm 5.6

Moving on to 70mm:

70mm 2.8 SOOC

And at around 85mm:

82mm 2.8 SOOC

In case you're wondering how the lens looks at 85mm stopped down to f/4:

85mm f/4.0 ISO 6400 - default sharpening, luminance noise reduction at 15

Finally, at 105mm:

105mm 2.8

OTHER PHOTOS

I like the portraits using this lens taken by Flickr member halpics2 (note: most of these were with cameras with an APS-C sensor therefore the focal length equivalent would be 42mm to 158mm)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77345520@N00/304631343/in/set-72157594399136671
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77345520@N00/346118640/in/set-72157594399136671/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77345520@N00/336697469/in/set-72157594399136671/
Check out his other shots with this lens here.

SUMMARY

+ Sharp even wide open at longer focal lengths

+ Decent sharpness at f/4.0 at shorter focal lengths

+ Versatile zoom range

+ Constant 2.8 aperture

+ full frame

+ inexpensive / good value at current used prices

- Soft wide open at 50mm and shorter focal lengths

- Halation at around 50mm at f/2.8.

- big and heavy

- because few people know about it, it may be harder to resell

Performance at f/2.8 is good at long focal lengths, not so good wide open at shorter focal lengths.  However, at f/4.0 it improves significantly so that it performs well at all focal lengths.  If you want good sharpness throughout focal lengths then you can consider this an f/4 lens with a bonus f/2.8 at longer focal lengths. :)

In practical terms, it's good for portraits with the ability to cover wide angles.  It's also good as a walkaround lens or when you otherwise want to bring only one lens to cover a diverse range of subjects.  Considering the current market value of a used copy of this lens these days, it's a reasonable alternative to a 24-105 f/4 lens (albeit without stabilization) or the Tamron 28-75.  It is a good alternative if you find the 24-70 a little too short for portraits (do you often find yourself racking out your zoom?).  Finally, it is also a good alternative if you use both a FF body and an APS-C body, and you want to use the APS-C body for telephoto.  When this is on an FF body, it perfectly complements a 70-200 on an APS-C body allowing you to cover 28 to 300mm at 2.8 without any gaps.

Other reviews of this lens:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=242
http://www.photopurity.com/2010/08/18/tamron-28-105-f2-8-lens-review/
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/tamron/af28-105mm-f-2-8-ld-asp-if/prd_83610_3128crx.aspx
http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=121
http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_data.php?lensID=141

RELATED ARTICLES

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/soft-focus.html

Read More

Comparison Between Canon and Nikon

The goal of this article is to introduce Canon's system to Nikonians and Nikon's system to Canonistas. It is not to "prove" that one system is superior to the other, but instead to discuss the differences for increasing our mutual awareness, or to help someone select a system or switch to another system.

At the end of the day, you will be able to get excellent pictures with any system you have (even with systems not mentioned in this comparison) provided that you spend more time taking pictures than fighting over the forums defending the superiority of your brand. This is a grown-up, calm discussion about the variations between one brand and the other. This post is mostly discussing DSLRs.

More after the jump... and flame suit on. :-)



ABOUT US

• mshafik: I am 100% brand-neutral, and although I like or hate some things about certain brands, this doesn't mean I hate that brand and would never use it, there is no perfect system and it's all compromises. I currently shoot a Canon 5D MarkII, I have used Canon and Sony P&S, I have also used Samsung and Yashica film cameras. As for video cameras, I have used a Sony and a Samsung.


• Mic: I consider myself reasonably brand-neutral. I currently own DSLRs by Nikon and Fuji. I have previously owned a Pentax DSLR. Through friends and family, I have used Canon and Panasonic DSLRs. I have lenses from Nikon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. With P&S cameras, I've had Casio, Nikon, and Panasonic. I've given Canon P&S as gifts and recommended Canon P&S to friends. I have a Canon HD camcorder.  When friends ask for advice on buying their first DSLR, I tell them to choose between Canon or Nikon, and give the pros and cons of each.

WHY AM I USING A NIKON/CANON DSLR?

• mshafik: My first DSLR was the Canon 550D when it was introduced, I was comparing it to the Nikon D90, both were similarly priced, the 550D was newer with more megapixels and great high ISO performance, while the D90 had a much better body with a top LCD, better battery, and a very good sensor, (confession: I really like the way the Nikon cameras renders noise, it looks like fine grain with no color blotches or banding). At the end I decided to go for the newer body and the more affordable lenses (besides, I already had two Canon flashes). It was a straight sailing from there as I acquired more lenses and upgraded through the bodies.


• Mic:  My first DSLR was a Pentax K100D.  I bought it based on DPReview tests showing that it had excellent high ISO capability (at the time) for an entry-level DSLR (similar to that of the Nikon D40).  In addition, it had shake reduction (sensor-based image stabilization) which meant that I would get stabilization with all lenses. After about a year of using the Pentax, however, I found the autofocus too slow for baby pictures, so I thought about switching.  Based on my research it appeared that Nikon had one of the best reputations for autofocus.  I was also learning about off-camera flash, and in 2008, only Nikon had cameras with built-in commander capabilities.  Nikon also had a good reputation for their flash system.  So I bought a Nikon D80, the lowest-end Nikon that had a built-in commander.  I haven't regretted my choice then, except perhaps during those times when I was shopping for a lens and I saw that Canon has less expensive lenses (see below).  I also had Canon envy when I was thinking about a full frame camera and saw how much more affordable the low-end Canon full frame cameras were.

SCOPE OF COMPARISON

We've organized the differences according to categories:

• History
• Camera Bodies
• Lenses
• Basic Operation
• Lighting
• Functions and Features

HISTORY / COMPANY BACKGROUND

1. Canon was named after Kannon, the Buddhist goddess of mercy. Nikon is short for Nippon Kogaku (Japan Optical).


2. Canon lenses are branded Canon. Nikon's lenses are branded Nikkor.


3. Pronunciation: Canon is pronounced the same everywhere. Nikon is prononuced with a long 'i' in the US while it is pronounced with a short 'i' everywhere else.


4. Model names:
1. Nikon's model names have recently become more standardized and logical.  Models with fewer digits are higher end. Among models with the same number of digits, higher numbers are higher end, and within the same range of numbers, higher numbers are newer models.  Thus D4 > D3 > D800> D700 > D300S > D7000 > D5100 > D5000 and so forth. However, older Nikons did not follow this pattern (D40 to D90 are all lower-end than D300 or D700).
2. Entry level Canon cameras have different names in different countries, for example, the Canon 600D is called that everywhere except in the USA (Canon Rebel T3i) and Japan (Canon Kiss X5). In the recent lineup, the lower the digits the higher the end the body is, and lower numbers within the same number of digits indicates a higher end body, example from lower to higher end: Canon 1100D, 600D, 60D, 7D, 5D MarkIII, 1DX.


5. Market share:
   We don't have global data for 2011, but historically, most reports I've seen show that Canon is the leader in DSLR market share with Nikon second.


1. April 15, 2011 Bloomberg article: "In the market for cameras with interchangeable lens, or single lens reflex cameras, Canon controlled 44.5 percent of the market, followed by Nikon with 29.8 percent and Sony with 11.9 percent, according to the data."
2. Japanese market share 2011: here.
 

CAMERA BODIES AND HANDLING

1. Full frame bodies: Canon has had a full-frame DSLR since 2002, whereas Nikon's first full frame DSLR was the D3, released in 2007.


2. If you want a full frame DSLR, the Canon 5D is the least expensive full frame DSLR by a huge margin (under $1000 used, compared to around $1900 for a used D700).


3. For APS-C cameras: Canon's sensor is slightly smaller (1.6x crop factor) than Nikon (1.5x crop factor).


4. In addition to full frame and APS-C, Canon has an APS-H format (1.3x crop factor), which only uses full frame (not APS-C) lenses (you can mount EF-S lenses to APS-H with heavy vignetting, but please don't). Canon will stop producing APS-H cameras in 2012.
   


5. Mirrorless: Nikon has a mirrorless line called the CX format (2.7x crop factor - smaller than Micro Four Thirds). They use different lenses from DSLRs. Canon has not yet announced a mirrorless line, the closest to a large sensor mirrorless camera they produced is the Canon G1x.


6. Command dials: Entry-level and mid-level Nikons have only one command dial - a horizontal one in the rear. More advanced Nikon bodies have two command dials - one in front, and one at the back, both horizontal. Entry level Canon bodies (xxxxD and xxxD series) has only one dial at the top, the higher end bodies have two command dials - a vertical dial on top, a wheel at the back, and an 8-directional joystick (except for the 60D).


7. Menus: Canon menus have categories/tabs on top, and options listed below. Nikon menus have categories/tabs on the left, and options listed on the right. mshafik here: excuse this personal opinion, but I find the Nikon menus (especially the quick control screen and the top LCD) to be awfully organized and garbled, this is the major thing that offsets me from a Nikon, I am very strict when it comes to neatness and tidiness.


8. Button control:  With higher-end Nikons, you don't need to go through menus to activate several options.  You simply press buttons and rotate one of the command dials.  Some of the options that you can change without going through the menus include: focus area (number of active AF points), bracketing, flash exposure compensation, white balance bias (toward warm or cool), image format (JPEG, TIFF, raw, or both, etc.).


9. Sensor aspect ratio: Both Nikon and Canon uses 2x3 (4x6).


10. Autofocus motor: entry and mid-level Nikons don't have an autofocus motor in the body. Older lenses without built-in motors can't focus on these bodies, however Nikon is working on releasing new versions of these lenses with built-in focus motors. All Canon EF and EF-S lenses released since 1987 have built-in focus motors, so whether you are using an entry level or a high end body, you will get autofocus.


11. Resolution: Historically, Nikon sensors had lower resolution than their Canon counterparts. But now the trend may be reversing - recent Nikon sensors have very high resolution.
1. D700 12mp vs 5DII 21mp - D300 12mp vs 7D 18mp - D90 12mp vs 60D 18mp.
2. D800 36mp vs 5DIII 22mp - D3200 24mp vs 550D 18mp
 

LENSES

1. Cost: Canon lenses are usually less expensive than their Nikon counterparts.
1. Canon 17-55 IS: $1150. Nikon 17-55: $1540.
2. Canon 24-70: $1580. Nikon 24-70: $1890.
3. Canon 24-105 f/4L: $953. Nikon 24-120 f/4G: $1300.


2. f/1.2 lenses: Canon has modern 1.2 lenses (50 1.2L, 85 1.2L). Nikon has a 50 1.2 but it's manual focus only.


3. Lens Lineup:


1. Canon's current lineup of autofocus lenses has 71 lenses (and 2 teleconverters).
2. Nikon's current lineup of autofocus lenses has 62 lenses (and 3 teleconverters).


4. Compatibility with older lenses: Nikon has maintained compatibility with older F-mount lenses produced since 1959, which can be used on modern DSLRs (with some limitations). When Canon introduced EF lenses in 1987, they did not maintain native compatibility with older lenses.


5. Lens adapters: You can mount a Nikon lens on a Canon body with an adapter, however you cannot mount a Canon lens on a Nikon body even with an adapter. Generally, video shooters love the Canon cameras because they can fit almost any lens with an adapter, I am using an Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 with my Canon body.


6.  Lens caps: Nikon (and Sigma, Tamron and Sony, for that matter) have very good and strong lens caps with clips in the middle, unlike Canon's flimsy lens caps which can only be operated from the sides of the cap, this makes it very difficult to operate with most lens hoods. I have bought Tamron lens caps for all my Canon lenses, and they are way better.


7. Zoom direction: On a Nikon zoom, you rotate the barrel clockwise to use longer focal lengths. Vice-versa for Canon.


8. Lens names: Canon calls their full frame lenses EF, and their APS-C only lenses are EF-S. Nikon calls their APS-C only lenses "DX". Full frame lenses are called "FX" (or have no specific designation).


9. APS-C lenses on Full Frame bodies: Nikon allows the use of APS-C lenses on full frame bodies. The bodies will crop automatically. APS-C lenses can't be used on Canon full frame bodies.  The mirror will hit the lens.


10. High-end lenses: Canon's high end lenses are usually given the "L" designation and a red ring, they usually have very high quality glass, fast ring USM focusing and most of them are weatherproof. The 70-200 series and super telephotos are white. Canon's EF-S lenses for crop sensors are never given the "L" designation although there are some lenses that can match and beat "L" lenses in image and build quality.  Nikon uses black lenses (a few limited edition lenses are white or gray) with high-end lenses having gold rings.  High-end Nikon lenses include lens cases.


11. Aperture ring (for manual aperture control): Older Nikon lenses have aperture rings but the newest Nikon lenses (G) don't have an aperture ring. All EF Canon lenses don't have aperture rings either.


12. Telephoto: It is said that Canon has better super telephoto lenses. One of the great lenses people are eagerly waiting for is the new 200-400 f/4 L 1.4 extender. The party trick of this lens is the specially designed built-in extender which transforms the lens' focal length to 280-560mm, so you have one relatively small lens with a 200-560mm range, expected price is ~ $11,000.

OPERATION

1. Spot metering: With Nikon, the camera will spot meter the chosen AF point. With Canon, the camera will spot meter the AF point only on high-end bodies. In other bodies, the camera will spot meter from the middle regardless of which AF point is selected.


2. Auto DOF calculator: Canon has auto DOF calculator (A-DEP). Nikon doesn't.


3. Color information: all Nikon DSLRs use color information in the exposure metering and autofocus. Canon does not use color information except the 5D Mark III which can tell cool/warm (but not actual color).


4. Autofocus - historically, photographers who've used both say that Nikon has more accurate autofocus. However, the most advanced AF system right now is arguably that of the 5DIII (most number of AF points, has diagonal AF points). It all depends on your usage, if you are used to shooting static subjects with the center point only, then you will be satisfied with even the old focusing systems.

LIGHTING

1. Canon calls their flashes speedlites. Nikon calls theirs speedlights.


2. Remote control of external flash: Canon allows full control of the built-in and external flashes (including wireless groups) using the menus on the back LCD. Nikon doesn't. This feature is useful when you have one of the cameras with a wireless master flash (600D, 60D and 7D) or a long TTL cord. With a Canon you have full control over the flashes. With a Nikon you have to walk over to the flash to change some settings.


3. Radio TTL flash: Canon now has radio-based wireless TTL, Nikon doesn't.


4. Multiple wireless flash control: Canon uses ratios between each slave group. The ratios control the flash output (not the flash exposure), with the new radio sppedlites, you have more meaningful control other than the ratios, and you can have up to 5 different groups. Nikon uses independent FEC (or specific manual flash settings) to adjust flash exposure for each TTL slave group.


5. External flash swivel: SB-910, SB-900 and SB-700 can rotate 180 degrees both ways. Previous Nikon flashes could rotate 180 degrees to the left, but only 90 degrees to the right. Only the high end Canon flash can swivel 180 degrees both ways (580EX, 580EXII, 600EX), other ones rotate 180 degrees to one side, and 90 degrees to the other side.


6. Flash exposure compensation: with Canon, exposure compensation does not affect flash exposure. With Nikon, exposure compensation affects flash exposure (except the D4, where you have an option to select whether exposure compensation affects flash exposure or not). So with Canon, if you wanted to underexpose the ambient, you simply dial in the exposure compensation and leave the flash exposure compensation alone. With Nikon you would reduce exposure compensation then have to offset it with a corresponding increase in flash exposure compensation.


7. Commander mode: Historically, Nikon had camera bodies that had a built-in commander flash, while Canon did not do so until the Canon 7D in 2009. The trend has reversed, because now even mid-level Canons (600D) have them while some mid-level Nikon cameras (D5000, D5100) don't.


8. High-speed sync. In Nikon, it's called "Auto FP". When it's activated in the camera body, you don't need to do change any setting in the flash. In Canon, it's called "HSS", there is a direct button on the flash to activate it.


9. Remote HSS: Nikon allows HSS in wireless mode. Canon allows it in wireless mode only if you are using a speedlite as a master, i.e it can't be activated by the built-in flash commander.


10. Rear curtain sync: In Nikon, it's a function of the body only. When a camera has it, it works with all flashes (even non-Nikon), with Canon, it can work with all cameras.


11. Sync speed. Low-end Nikons have a sync speed of 1/200, high-end bodies sync at 1/250. Some high end bodies (D300, D300S, D700, D7000) can boost sync speed from 1/250 to 1/320 with a slight decrease in flash exposure. Full frame Canons have a sync speed of 1/200, mid to high-end bodies have 1/250 sync speed, low end xxxD series have 1/200 sync speed.

FUNCTIONS/FEATURES

1. The potential image quality between the two is the same, especially if you will post-process your images. However, if you're not going to post-process the photo (i.e. just straight out of the camera JPEG), in my opinion Canon's images look more "punchy" and saturated. However, Nikon's SOOC JPEGs can be made to look similar. mshafik here: I have a Canon, and despite trying all sorts of built-in picture settings, I was never satisfied with the JPEGs (especially noise/details treatment) my DSLRs produced, but they say the 5D Mark III has a much better JPEG engine.


2. Software - Nikon: Nikon offers a free raw converter called ViewNX.  Unfortunately it borders on being unusable because it is extremely slow.  There is also a program called Capture NX produced by Nik Software for Nikon.  It has a unique selective adjustment tool called "U-Point" which is simple although not necessarily more powerful than Lightroom.  Capture NX is also quite slow.


3. Software - Canon: The two important free pieces of software you get with all Canon DSLRs are, Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) and EOS Utility. The DPP is Canon's free RAW conversion software, it is quick, flexible and offers great control over the picture, however, I find that I like Adobe's Lightroom controls and workflow, especially for noise reduction, but there are people that depend 100% on DPP for their RAW conversion. EOS Utility is very important for people shooting tethered, you get complete remote control over the camera and live view shooting, you also use it to upload picture styles, lens correction profiles and change the copyright information embedded in your pictures.


4. Multiple exposure: some Nikon DSLRs have multiple exposure and image overlay mode.  With multiple exposure mode, you can take several shots that will be superimposed on top of each other.  In some Nikons, you can take up to 3 shots (e.g. D90), while in others you can take as many as 10 (e.g. D3).  In image overlay mode, you can take two separate raw files and superimpose them over each other after the fact.


5. Custom file names: higher-end Nikon bodies allow you to customize the file name (for example, instead of DSC1234, it could be MIC1234). Canons don't allow that.


6. Intervalometer: More advanced Nikon bodies have built-in intervalometer function, which automatically takes photos at specific time intervals, allowing you to capture a series of slow movements such as the movement of clouds or even the growth of plants.  The new D800 and D4 take this one step further and have a built-in time lapse mode which automatically creates a movie out of the photos taken by the intervalometer. Canon doesn't have that, you have to use an external intervalometer, and by the way, Canon -stupidly- has two types of intervalometer connections, one for the xxxD and xxD series, and a different one for the xD series, I wish someone can tell me why!


7. Video.  Nikon produced the first DSLR with video (the D90) but if you care about video, Canon is generally ahead of the game. Some Nikon users switched to Canon because of this (or bought a separate Canon DSLR for video). However, the new Nikon D4, D800 and D800E all have advanced video features.  On the other hand, some comparisons give a slight edge to the 5DIII over the D800 for video.


8. Better point and shoot cameras. The Canon G series is better than Nikon's equivalent. This is relevant if you want to use the same equipment for both e.g. flash and TTL cord.


9. Remote Control: There is an amazing Android app called DSLR Controller, which allows complete remote control with a smartphone via the built-in USB cable. It allows real-time live view with all the controls imaginable (ex. Auto focus with fine tuning, focus peaking, 10x magnification, taking pictures and videos and viewing them from your phone, time lapse mode, intervalometer, the new version even has a focus pulling mode where you set two focus positions and the camera switches between them during video recording), it is an excellent app which is very well executed, currently it's in beta at version 0.94, once it hits version 1 it will be out of beta and the price will jump, so get it now. Currently there is no such app for Nikon (but the Nikon D4 and D3200 have accessories that allow wireless remote control with live-view).

WOULD YOU SWITCH TO NIKON/CANON?

mshafik: of course, provided that I can sell my equipment and get similar ones in Nikon without a great loss. I am fascinated with Nikon's amazing shadow dynamic range, and fine grain high ISO noise. Until recently I was not really fond of their cameras, but with the D800 I find it a very good offering (especially that it's $500 cheaper than the 5D3), but I don't like the expensive lens prices. I love to try new things all the time, and switching to an all Nikon system would be a refreshing change, I am sure I can be content with any system.


Mic:  Like mshafik, the main deterrent for me would be the financial loss in the sale of my equipment and buying new ones.  However, if that is not an issue, then yes I would consider switching to Canon.  I seriously thought about doing so at the time I was looking for a full-frame camera.  Even now I am interested in Canon.  The main attractions for me are: (i) the lens selection and cost, (ii) the fact that exposure compensation doesn't affect flash exposure compensation, and (iii) the ability to control external flashes using the menus.  My biggest concern is the autofocus.  The times I used a Canon DSLR (I've tried a 50D and 7D), it didn't seem any different from Nikon, but some of my Canon friends mention it from time to time, and I have a friend who switched to Nikon because of that particular issue.


SO, WHICH BRAND DO YOU RECOMMEND?

mshafik: For beginners and entry level DSLRs, I would absolutely recommend the Canon xxxD/Rebel series (don't even give a second thought to the 1100D), the main reason would be that you'd get auto focus no matter what lens you buy, while the Nikon D3100 or even the D5100 doesn't have a built-in focus motor. Canon has very good cheap lenses for beginners. For pros, I can't give a recommendation, a pro knows what he wants and would be able to get excellent pictures with any camera or lens.

Mic:  What I always tell my friends is to choose between Canon or Nikon.  I tell them that the main advantage of Canon in my opinion is the lower cost of some of their lenses (with the same quality).  Nikon's advantage may be the autofocus.  I used to say that Nikon had an advantage in terms of their flash technology but now they are about even, or Canon may even be ahead (they have radio TTL whereas Nikon doesn't).  An even more important factor for me, however, is the handling of each brand.  That's something that you will deal with constantly.  Some people are fine with either Canon or Nikon's control system.  Others have a strong preference for one or the other.  Therefore I would strongly suggest trying out both in a store to see which one you prefer.  Honestly, you really can't go wrong either way.

OTHER RESOURCES

Nikon vs. Canon by Ken Rockwell (he uses both)
Canon and Nikon durability test by DigitalRev - Part 1 and Part 2

Read More

Vanishing Point

Vanishing Point, a photo by mic_ty on Flickr.

We took our son to the doctor for a couple of appointments. In between the appointments, I had time to look around the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, designed by C.C. Pei of Pei Partnership Architects in collaboration with I.M. Pei. This was one of the shots I took, with the Fuji S5 Pro and the Tokina 10-17 Fisheye. I like how the lines (both real and reflected) converge into a single point. The S5's dynamic range allowed me to retain detail in the sky (again, both real and reflected), contributing to the illusion of a transparent facade.

 Look for an upcoming review of this lens.

Via Flickr:
Fuji S5 Pro + Tokina 10-17 fisheye

Read More

DPReview Posts Nikon D3200 Tests

DPReview has just posted its studio test for the Nikon D3200.  As we predicted, the Nikon D3200 has identical performance to that of the Sony NEX-7.

Read More

Best Alternative to Nikon 24-70 2.8G: the Nikon 28-70 2.8D

Every Nikon shooter knows that the Nikkor 24-70 2.8G is the best standard zoom for Nikon's full frame cameras.  However, at around $1900, it's not easily affordable.  There are of course third-party standard zooms that cost far less, such as from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina, but their performance is not quite as good as that of the Nikkor 24-70.

One alternative that some newer Nikon shooters might not know about is the predecessor to the 24-70, the Nikkor 28-70 2.8D.  It is no longer being sold new, but used prices are about half the price of the 24-70.

But is the 28-70 as good as the 24-70?  In this post, I compare the 28-70 to the 24-70 and let you judge for yourself.

ABOUT THE 28-70
The 28-70 is the first high-end Nikon lens I've owned.  It is an all-metal lens and feels substantial.  I don't own an 85 1.4D, but that's what it reminded me of.  It feels like you're holding an expensive watch.

The 28-70 usually comes in black like the one pictured above but there is also a white version:

image courtesy of Nikon

The 28-70 is sometimes called 'the Beast' because of its size and weight, a name that I don't think it truly deserves, because it's only slightly wider, a little shorter, and just 35 grams heavier than the 24-70.  There are some people who talk about it being too heavy.  I think they're whining like a bunch of little kittens.

The 28-70 on a D3 beside a Tamron 17-50 VC on a D70

Quick rundown of the 28-70's features:

• Full frame FX lens - can be used on both full frame FX and APS-C DX bodies.  On a full frame, it's a standard fast zoom.  On a DX body, it covers 42-105, which is like having both a normal lens and a portrait lens with you, but no wide angle coverage.
• Constant f/2.8 aperture
• ED glass:  Extra-low dispersion glass minimizes chromatic aberrations.
• SWM (silent wave motor): as an AF-S lens, the 28-70 has a silent wave motor, which allows it to focus quickly and accurately, even on smaller Nikon bodies without a built-in AF motor
• SIC super integrated coating - reduces ghosting and flare
• M/A switch - allows quick switching from autofocus to manual focus
• aperture ring - as a D lens, the 28-70 has an aperture ring, which can be used to change aperture on the fly for video, adjusting aperture on older cameras, or for macro (for example, if used with a reversing ring).

Both the 28-70 and 24-70 have 15 elements in 11 groups, except that the 24-70 has 3 aspherical elements whereas the 28-70 has one.  Both have a 9 bladed diaphragm for rounder bokeh.

There are some differences in features, however.  The 24-70 has Nikon's nano crystal coating to minimize ghosting and flare.  The 24-70 also has dust/weather-sealing.  Finally, the 24-70 has a much closer minimum focus distance (15 inches vs. 27.6 inches).

Included accessories:
The 28-70 comes with a petal-shaped lens hood (HB-19) and a leatherette hard case (Nikon CL-74).

On with the shootout...

28-70 vs. 24-70: TEST PROTOCOL
I took the two lenses, mounted them alternately on a D3 on a tripod aimed at a brick wall.  I took shots at 70mm, 35mm, 28mm (and in the case of the 24-70, at 24mm as well).  Each focal length was taken at f/2.8, f/4.0 and f/5.6.

To compare the results, I took 100% crops from the center and from the upper left corner area (not literally the corner though).  This is what the uncropped shot at 28mm looks like:

Disclaimer: the 28-70 had the benefit of a microfocus adjustment.  The 24-70 here did not.

100% CROP FROM CENTER
In the slideshow below, you'll see the 28-70 shot first, then the equivalent shot from the 24-70.  If you prefer, you can click on the link to launch the album where you can view the pictures larger.

100% CROP FROM CORNER
The slideshow below is similar to the one above, except these crops are taken from top left corners of the same shots.  Web album here.


In my opinion, the 28-70 holds its own against the significantly more expensive 24-70, at least at the D3's 12 megapixel resolution.  [EDIT: But see the comments below for the performance on a D800.]  The 24-70 has a warmer color rendition, but otherwise it's hard to tell them apart unless they're side-by-side, and I'm pixel peeping really closely.

CONCLUSION
If you are looking for a more affordable alternative to the Nikon 24-70 2.8G, this is it. Together with the 24-70, this is Nikon's best standard zoom with virtually the same sharpness, yet it costs almost half as much as the 24-70.  Personally, I sold mine, but only because I found a good deal on the 24-70 and I wanted the peace of mind of having the absolute best lens for a focal range that I use very often, in case I ever upgrade to a higher resolution body.

Coming up: A review of the Tamron 28-105 f/2.8, the only lens that covers 28-105 at a constant 2.8 aperture.  I will also be reviewing the Nikon 24-70 briefly, followed by the Sigma 50 1.4.  We'll switch to wide angles again with the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and the Tokina 10-17 fisheye.  Then we'll go to the opposite end with a review of the Nikon 70-200 VR I.

OTHER COMPARISONS BETWEEN 28-70 AND 24-70

• Ken Rockwell's review of the 28-70 here.  Side-by-side comparisons (together with other standard zooms) here.
• Comparison by Utopia Photography
• a Nikonland user's comparison (Italian) 
• Just for kicks: Nikkor 28-70 vs Canon 24-70 2.8L (French)

28-70 SAMPLE SHOTS

28mm at 2.8

48mm at 2.8

28mm at 4.0

Scissor sweep.  70mm at f/4.5

My professor, teaching the s-mount armbar.  50mm at 4.0

28mm at 4.0

38mm at 2.8

Read More

Nikon D600 Predictions

EDIT: Leaked photos of the D600 here.  It does indeed look pretty much like a D7000 with FX sensor.

Nikon Rumors reported a rumor about the possible release by Nikon of an entry-level full frame camera, called the Nikon D600, perhaps as early as this summer.  I'd like to give my predictions about the specs of that camera.

I predict the D600 will have the same 16-megapixel sensor as the Nikon D4.  This is logical because it would allow Nikon to recoup their investment in the development of the D4 sensor (the D4 is of course not a high volume product).  This would mean the high ISO performance is better than that of the D3 (at a higher resolution) though not quite as good as that of the D3S.

Given that this is a higher-end model than the D7000, its specs are at least as good as the D7000 in almost all (if not all) respects, therefore I expect the following:
- At least 39 AF points.
- 100% viewfinder.
- Dual memory cards.
- 1080p 30fps, like the D3200.
- pop-up flash with built-in commander

To differentiate the D600 from the D4, it would have to miss some features:
- Shutter rated at 150,000 cycles instead of 200,000 (D800) or 400,000 (D4).

- Continuous shooting speed far less than that of the D4.  Probably 4fps or less.
- Metering may be similar to the 2016-pixel RGB sensor in the D7000 instead of the 91k pixel of the D4 and D800.
- No AF-ON button.
- SD cards instead of CF cards.  Most professional cameras use CF cards.  By using SD cards, Nikon could discourage professionals from using this camera.

- No PC sync.
- No ethernet capabilities.

Essentially, it's like a D7000 with a D4 sensor.  It may also be compatible with the WU-1a wireless adapter.

As for price, it will cost $2200, the same as the D700 after the price drop (the D700 will officially be phased out).  There will be a kit lens included for around $2500, the 24-70 3.5-4.5 lens for which Nikon filed a patent.

Read More