I love Nikon. I love their handling. I love their ergonomics. It's all very logical to me. Below is a list of the Nikon Cameras I have owned or own at one point or another and what I like the most about them.
1) Nikon F3HP - Whats not to like. Great build, large, bright viewfinder, accurate metering, the sound of the shutter is just intoxicating, just can't get enough of it.
2) Nikon FM2 - A lot like the F3HP, only with a smaller viewfinder but another mechanical marvel.
3) Nikon F100 - Lightning fast AF (faster than my D200), great metering, 5fps
4) Nikon Coolpix 8400 - Great lens, produces great color and contrast.
5) Nikon D70 - Accurate metering, and great resolution for 6MP, printed 60" x 45" great
6) Nikon D200 - The perfect camera, excellent resolution and metering, quick accurate AF, perfect ergonomics, big bright LCD
7) Nikon D80 - a baby D200, smaller, lighter but almost the exact same camera
Lenses:
1) Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AIS
2) Nikon 105mm f/2.5 AIS
3) Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AFD
4) Tokina 12-24mm f/4.0 AF SD ATX PRO
5) Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 AF SD ATX PRO
6) Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 AFS ED DX
7) Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AFS ED DX
8) Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 AFD EX Asph.
9) Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AFD ED
10) Nikon 200-400mm f/4.0 VR AFS ED
What I wish to have: (its always good to have a wishlist)
1) Nikon D3 -Who doesn't have this on their wish list?
2) Nikon 70-200mm AFS VR ED - Been thinking up excuses to replace the 80-200 hehe
3) Nikon 105mm f/2.5 Macro AFS VR - I've always wanted a dedicated macro lens
4) Nikon 200mm f/2.0 AFS VR - A beast of a lens
5) Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 AF-G ED
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Evolution of Digital Photography - The Rise of the DSLR
During the past 5 years, there have been awesome advances in the Digital SLR, along with this came the great leap for Photography. It used to be that only professionals could afford to buy a DSLR, during the era of the D1 and D1X, those were considered the pinnacle and at a huge premium as well. It was easy for photographers to charge a good amount of money and make a decent living out of his/her talents. The release of the D100 and eventually the D70 (prompted by Canon's own 300D) started a revolution and made DSLRs accessible for start up photographers who didn't want to invest too much but still it was a sizable investment. Now, with the D40/D40X and the newest D60 DSLRs are made affordable to the enthusiast. Digital SLRs and Digital Photography in general have been great for photography, you can view the shots in an instant, see what adjustments are needed, make those adjustments and viola the results speak for themselves. Long gone are the times when you had to nail the settings or else make endless adjustments at the darkroom. It has made the learning curve of striving photographers much easier. The Digital SLR has become more than a tool but a status symbol as well. Digital SLRs now are not only cheaper but produce the best image quality ever and that has been great for amateurs and enthusiasts but it has also been a real bane for professionals.
With the cost coming down on DSLRs and entry level DSLRs being able to produce just as good (to the untrained eye) images as the top of the line DSLRs, more and more amateurs are taking away jobs from professionals. Why? Its simple. Amateurs hardly charge anything and for most the experience is the reward in itself, which is not exactly evil but the fact that this is happening means that the pro is almost obliged to lower prices just to be considered by some clients. And to be honest there are a lot of these kinds of clients in our country; why pay more when you can get it for much less or even for free. I have even heard of amateurs taking away jobs from known fashion photographers at a lingerie show, for the price of an admission ticket. Photography is starting to be taken very lightly and skill is not anymore a gauge of worth, clients are measuring worth as they would in divisoria, the cheapest with good enough value wins.
This I feel is really bad for the industry and even worse for professionals. The photography business was really good back when the DSLRs were reserved for the professionals. But I do not blame the success of the DSLR rather the mentality of the people who feel like they're saving a lot because they are hiring a much 'cheaper' amateur. For the amateur its an easy decision, get experience and then charge once they feel they are good enough, but whose to say that they are. As with most disciplines, having a proper mentor or teacher is the best way to learn. I advise amateurs to get with a professional photographer for a shoot (most will let you come and help, some will even allow you to shoot). Learn the trade and proper pricing and respect those who have established themselves as some of the best in the country. Lets not drive pricing for photography services down. The perception is that Digital is free, no film, no prints required, but skill and experience are also factors and it seems that the rise of the DSLR has masked this.
With the cost coming down on DSLRs and entry level DSLRs being able to produce just as good (to the untrained eye) images as the top of the line DSLRs, more and more amateurs are taking away jobs from professionals. Why? Its simple. Amateurs hardly charge anything and for most the experience is the reward in itself, which is not exactly evil but the fact that this is happening means that the pro is almost obliged to lower prices just to be considered by some clients. And to be honest there are a lot of these kinds of clients in our country; why pay more when you can get it for much less or even for free. I have even heard of amateurs taking away jobs from known fashion photographers at a lingerie show, for the price of an admission ticket. Photography is starting to be taken very lightly and skill is not anymore a gauge of worth, clients are measuring worth as they would in divisoria, the cheapest with good enough value wins.
This I feel is really bad for the industry and even worse for professionals. The photography business was really good back when the DSLRs were reserved for the professionals. But I do not blame the success of the DSLR rather the mentality of the people who feel like they're saving a lot because they are hiring a much 'cheaper' amateur. For the amateur its an easy decision, get experience and then charge once they feel they are good enough, but whose to say that they are. As with most disciplines, having a proper mentor or teacher is the best way to learn. I advise amateurs to get with a professional photographer for a shoot (most will let you come and help, some will even allow you to shoot). Learn the trade and proper pricing and respect those who have established themselves as some of the best in the country. Lets not drive pricing for photography services down. The perception is that Digital is free, no film, no prints required, but skill and experience are also factors and it seems that the rise of the DSLR has masked this.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Using Thrid Party Lenses for Nikon DSLRs
This is a very interesting topic indeed. Is using third party lenses a good enough alternative to using Nikon lenses? Well, the simple answer is yes it is a good enough alternative, but if you can afford to get a Nikon lens, go for it.
I have used a couple of third party lenses like SIGMA, TAMRON, and TOKINA for paid shoots (Carl Ziess ZF lenses are of course excluded from this discussion). They're actually very good at what they're supposed to do, they won't win in a pixel peeping side by side comparison with original NIKON branded lenses but at 1/3 the cost they do a good enough job that you might not even notice the difference. IMHO, sharpness is where the third party lenses have concentrated on, to the point that they are (almost) just as sharp as their NIKON counterparts. But there's more to lenses than their sharpness. Color, contrast and saturation are big factors as well, and here's where most third party lenses fall a bit short. BOKEH, or the appearance of the out of focus area is also important. And of course there's build quality and reliability, which is good for others and mediocre for some third party lenses.
To sum it all up, I have built a small pros and cons of each of the three third party lenses I have tried and used. (note: I have used; Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 EX, Sigma 28 f/1.8, Tokina 12-24 f/4 ATX PRO, Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 ATX PRO and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 LD)
SIGMA
Sharpness - Very good, even at wide open and near excellent stopped down to f/5.6-8.0
Color - Has a slight yellow color cast, which oddly some people find pleasing
Contrast - A bit on the lower than what I would like, tends to smudge some detail on slight gradiations
Saturation - Very good saturation a bit too much on the reds and oranges, but overall very nice
BOKEH - nice and pleasing, great for portraits (due to the 70mm end)
Build Quality - Crinkle finish wears of very easily, lens cap is impossible to remove when the hood on the lens, made of (what feels like) very sturdy plastic and some metal parts. AF ring rotates and can be a problem if snagged by loose articles of clothing.
Reliability - Varies from sample to sample, my first Sigma had a back focusing issue but my subsequent copies have been spot on, it is also important to note that SIGMA has a lot of Quality Control issues, so if you're buying one be sure to give the sample a thorough testing before paying up.
TOKINA
Sharpness - Wide open its just good enough, stopped down it to f/5.6-8.0 its excellent
Color - Emulates the color produced by genuine NIKON lenses very well
Contrast - very good, does have the tendency to flare a lot and produce chromatic abberations under extremely high contrast scenes
Saturation - Good saturation all throughout
BOKEH - good but a bit lacking for portraits (due to the 50mm, not really a good range for portraits)
Build Quality - This is the forte of TOKINA, who recently is building a reputation of building tank-like lenses, very rugged and durable metal alloy with an excellent "armalite" finish, a pleasure to hold, really good double clutch mechanism that makes shifting from AF to MF really easy. It's in the same class as the NIKON in this department.
Reliability - Never had a problem with my now 3 yr old 12-24 but the 16-50 seems to have some focusing issues in the beginning, (my guess is that the mechanism was strung out too tightly from the factory) the focus was slow and erratic at best, I had to stop down to f/5.6 to ensure that subjects were in proper focus. After 3 weeks of use, it finally gave me the results I wanted and focussed accurately enough for me to be able to use f/2.8 which is the primary reason you would buy such a lens in the first place.
TAMRON
Sharpness - Probably the sharpest of the thrid party lenses I have used, even at f/2.8 it (looks to be) as good as my NIKON 17-55 f/2.8
Color - Produces Similar color to NIKON lenses but looks slightly cooler.
Contrast - great contrast, very high
Saturation - IMO a little bit lower than what I'd hoped for, easily fixed
BOKEH - good but a bit lacking for portraits (due to the 50mm, not really a good range for portraits), the TOKINA has much better BOKEH though
Build Quality - A lot of plastic, I think it is the lightest f/2.8 lens that I've used. The focus ring turns as the AF motor drives the lens. Looks and feels like a cheap lens, same build quality as the 18-55 kit lens of NIKON.
Reliability - I cannot comment on this as I only used the TAMRON for a month (had it together with the TOKINA, kept the TOKINA and returned the TAMRON). But for that month AF was spot on and very fast, contemplated on returning the TOKINA during the first 3 weeks, but then the TOKINA came good and its build quality won me over, sorry TAMRON.
I have used a couple of third party lenses like SIGMA, TAMRON, and TOKINA for paid shoots (Carl Ziess ZF lenses are of course excluded from this discussion). They're actually very good at what they're supposed to do, they won't win in a pixel peeping side by side comparison with original NIKON branded lenses but at 1/3 the cost they do a good enough job that you might not even notice the difference. IMHO, sharpness is where the third party lenses have concentrated on, to the point that they are (almost) just as sharp as their NIKON counterparts. But there's more to lenses than their sharpness. Color, contrast and saturation are big factors as well, and here's where most third party lenses fall a bit short. BOKEH, or the appearance of the out of focus area is also important. And of course there's build quality and reliability, which is good for others and mediocre for some third party lenses.
To sum it all up, I have built a small pros and cons of each of the three third party lenses I have tried and used. (note: I have used; Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 EX, Sigma 28 f/1.8, Tokina 12-24 f/4 ATX PRO, Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 ATX PRO and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 LD)
SIGMA
Sharpness - Very good, even at wide open and near excellent stopped down to f/5.6-8.0
Color - Has a slight yellow color cast, which oddly some people find pleasing
Contrast - A bit on the lower than what I would like, tends to smudge some detail on slight gradiations
Saturation - Very good saturation a bit too much on the reds and oranges, but overall very nice
BOKEH - nice and pleasing, great for portraits (due to the 70mm end)
Build Quality - Crinkle finish wears of very easily, lens cap is impossible to remove when the hood on the lens, made of (what feels like) very sturdy plastic and some metal parts. AF ring rotates and can be a problem if snagged by loose articles of clothing.
Reliability - Varies from sample to sample, my first Sigma had a back focusing issue but my subsequent copies have been spot on, it is also important to note that SIGMA has a lot of Quality Control issues, so if you're buying one be sure to give the sample a thorough testing before paying up.
TOKINA
Sharpness - Wide open its just good enough, stopped down it to f/5.6-8.0 its excellent
Color - Emulates the color produced by genuine NIKON lenses very well
Contrast - very good, does have the tendency to flare a lot and produce chromatic abberations under extremely high contrast scenes
Saturation - Good saturation all throughout
BOKEH - good but a bit lacking for portraits (due to the 50mm, not really a good range for portraits)
Build Quality - This is the forte of TOKINA, who recently is building a reputation of building tank-like lenses, very rugged and durable metal alloy with an excellent "armalite" finish, a pleasure to hold, really good double clutch mechanism that makes shifting from AF to MF really easy. It's in the same class as the NIKON in this department.
Reliability - Never had a problem with my now 3 yr old 12-24 but the 16-50 seems to have some focusing issues in the beginning, (my guess is that the mechanism was strung out too tightly from the factory) the focus was slow and erratic at best, I had to stop down to f/5.6 to ensure that subjects were in proper focus. After 3 weeks of use, it finally gave me the results I wanted and focussed accurately enough for me to be able to use f/2.8 which is the primary reason you would buy such a lens in the first place.
TAMRON
Sharpness - Probably the sharpest of the thrid party lenses I have used, even at f/2.8 it (looks to be) as good as my NIKON 17-55 f/2.8
Color - Produces Similar color to NIKON lenses but looks slightly cooler.
Contrast - great contrast, very high
Saturation - IMO a little bit lower than what I'd hoped for, easily fixed
BOKEH - good but a bit lacking for portraits (due to the 50mm, not really a good range for portraits), the TOKINA has much better BOKEH though
Build Quality - A lot of plastic, I think it is the lightest f/2.8 lens that I've used. The focus ring turns as the AF motor drives the lens. Looks and feels like a cheap lens, same build quality as the 18-55 kit lens of NIKON.
Reliability - I cannot comment on this as I only used the TAMRON for a month (had it together with the TOKINA, kept the TOKINA and returned the TAMRON). But for that month AF was spot on and very fast, contemplated on returning the TOKINA during the first 3 weeks, but then the TOKINA came good and its build quality won me over, sorry TAMRON.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Setting the Proper White Balance
Perhaps the most misunderstood feature of Digital Photography, setting the proper white balance is something that most users take for granted or don't do at all. A lot of times we are content in leaving our cameras at the AUTO setting and AWB (Automatic White Balance), but is this really the right thing to do? Well, for most applications AWB is good enough and achieves good results.
So when is it necessary to use the 'other settings' that our digital cameras offer? Well, the simple answer is whenever we can (at least when were not shooting in RAW) In my experience it is ok to leave AWB when:
1) Outdoors
2) In a shady area outdoors
3) Using Flash (although not in mixed lighting conditions)
While in these other situations it is best to use one of the other white balance settings.
1) Indoors under fluorescent lights
2) Indoors under Tungsten lights
3) Under mixed lighting situations (ex. par lights which are tungsten and a bright white
spotlight and your flash)
Using different settings or the wrong white balance setting will lead to a color cast that is very difficult to remove completely in post production, so it is always advisable to get it right the first time. Also, we must note that some people like their portraits to have a slight reddish and yellowish color cast which makes the skin tones look warmer. Of course if you shoot RAW none of this should be a problem.
So when is it necessary to use the 'other settings' that our digital cameras offer? Well, the simple answer is whenever we can (at least when were not shooting in RAW) In my experience it is ok to leave AWB when:
1) Outdoors
2) In a shady area outdoors
3) Using Flash (although not in mixed lighting conditions)
While in these other situations it is best to use one of the other white balance settings.
1) Indoors under fluorescent lights
2) Indoors under Tungsten lights
3) Under mixed lighting situations (ex. par lights which are tungsten and a bright white
spotlight and your flash)
Using different settings or the wrong white balance setting will lead to a color cast that is very difficult to remove completely in post production, so it is always advisable to get it right the first time. Also, we must note that some people like their portraits to have a slight reddish and yellowish color cast which makes the skin tones look warmer. Of course if you shoot RAW none of this should be a problem.
Columbia Digital - Official Distributor of Nikon Products in the Philippines
Columbia Digital Sales Company is the official distributor of Nikon Products in the Philippines. A big flaw of Nikon Digital was that they had poor after sales support or simply they had poor repair service. I am glad to report that this is not the case anymore. Thanks to Mr. Anderson Tan, president of CDSC for greatly improving the marketing and service capabilities of Nikon in the Philippines.
Why I chose Nikon
Everybody seems to be asking me this question. People ask me is Nikon the professionals' choice, is it the better brand, does it produce superior images? I simply reply, Nikon is my choice because I like the lenses available, the very accurate metering system and focus tracking, and to me Nikon is very ergonomic plus I really like the colors from my Nikon DSLRs. Other DSLR manufacturers also produce very good cameras, maybe even better (to some people) but to me the combination that Nikon provides is just perfect.
Lenses
While generally more expensive than the competition, Nikon lenses even the consumer models produce very good results. Stepped down to their optimal apertures, even consumer-prosumer models are almost as good as the professional models. With the launch of the new 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8, together with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR Nikon has seamlessly created a f/2.8 professional lens lineup that stretches from 14mm-200mm. This while also having an unmatched prosumer model in the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. Add to this the ability to use virtually all F mount lenses ever produced, albeit in MF or without metering (on some bodies), Nikon produces the most diverse and quality lenses for their DSLR lineup. Nikon lenses just produce great sharpness and color.
Metering
This is very important to me, getting a properly exposed photo is paramount. In covering events, most of the time you wouldn't have the time to set proper exposure or exposure compensation or flash compensation being on the run. You have to be able to trust your equipment's metering. It has to be accurate and reliable, and Nikon's metering system is just that. This has always been Nikon's greatest asset starting with its (then) amazing center weighted metering system started with the early F series cameras. Up until 2005, I still used my Nikon F3HP with great pleasure and success because of its superb metering system. This in fact has elevated the Nikon metering system to near legendary status to the point that users of other systems only wish they had.
Focus and Tracking
Another feature I really enjoy with my Nikons are the accuracy and speed of focus and tracking. In photography as with most other applications, speed is nothing without accuracy, and although it has been said that Nikon isn't the quickest AF system around, I certainly could make a case for its accuracy. I love the fact that the D3 AF can be calibrated to any lens, making accuracy much greater. Using the Group Dynamic AF is also accurate and as seamless as can be, making tracking a moving subject very easy indeed.
Ergonimics
Well, this is a very subjective issue. I just find the layout of the buttons very logical and it is very easy to move between cameras (ex. D200 to a D80, D3 to a D300, etc.) for those who like to shoot with more than 1 body. For the prosumer-pro bodies at least, most everything has a dedicated button and a programmable func. button which I find very useful in the field.
A Few Notes on Noise
For a long time now, high ISO noise (starting at ISO 800) has been the knock on Nikon DSLRs. To be honest, it really didn't bother me that much, coming from film scans, even a fine grained ISO 100 is just about as 'noisy' as ISO 800 in Nikon DSLRs. There is also a quality in Nikon's 'Digital" Noise that was very endearing to me, maybe because it looked a lot like film. But with the release of the D300 and D3 Nikon seems as if they have really closed the gap in this department.
The Colors of Nikon
This is perhaps one of the best reasons to buy into the Nikon system at the moment. A group of my colleagues did a very impromptu test at one of the many photo conferences (I will not name anybody or brands), two of them had 2 brand new DSLRs one was a top of the line DSLR from another manufacturer with a pro grade zoom lens and the other was the dirt cheap D40 with its kit lens, they printed straight out of the camera jpegs, shooting the exact same subject. When they asked their peers which print they preferred, not knowing which came from what camera 8 out of 10 chose the print made by the lowly D40. When asked, they replied 'the colors look more vivid and perfectly saturated skin tones are perfectly captured compared to the other print'. I know this is hard to substantiate but I do see these colors from my Nikons everyday.
Lenses
While generally more expensive than the competition, Nikon lenses even the consumer models produce very good results. Stepped down to their optimal apertures, even consumer-prosumer models are almost as good as the professional models. With the launch of the new 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8, together with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR Nikon has seamlessly created a f/2.8 professional lens lineup that stretches from 14mm-200mm. This while also having an unmatched prosumer model in the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. Add to this the ability to use virtually all F mount lenses ever produced, albeit in MF or without metering (on some bodies), Nikon produces the most diverse and quality lenses for their DSLR lineup. Nikon lenses just produce great sharpness and color.
Metering
This is very important to me, getting a properly exposed photo is paramount. In covering events, most of the time you wouldn't have the time to set proper exposure or exposure compensation or flash compensation being on the run. You have to be able to trust your equipment's metering. It has to be accurate and reliable, and Nikon's metering system is just that. This has always been Nikon's greatest asset starting with its (then) amazing center weighted metering system started with the early F series cameras. Up until 2005, I still used my Nikon F3HP with great pleasure and success because of its superb metering system. This in fact has elevated the Nikon metering system to near legendary status to the point that users of other systems only wish they had.
Focus and Tracking
Another feature I really enjoy with my Nikons are the accuracy and speed of focus and tracking. In photography as with most other applications, speed is nothing without accuracy, and although it has been said that Nikon isn't the quickest AF system around, I certainly could make a case for its accuracy. I love the fact that the D3 AF can be calibrated to any lens, making accuracy much greater. Using the Group Dynamic AF is also accurate and as seamless as can be, making tracking a moving subject very easy indeed.
Ergonimics
Well, this is a very subjective issue. I just find the layout of the buttons very logical and it is very easy to move between cameras (ex. D200 to a D80, D3 to a D300, etc.) for those who like to shoot with more than 1 body. For the prosumer-pro bodies at least, most everything has a dedicated button and a programmable func. button which I find very useful in the field.
A Few Notes on Noise
For a long time now, high ISO noise (starting at ISO 800) has been the knock on Nikon DSLRs. To be honest, it really didn't bother me that much, coming from film scans, even a fine grained ISO 100 is just about as 'noisy' as ISO 800 in Nikon DSLRs. There is also a quality in Nikon's 'Digital" Noise that was very endearing to me, maybe because it looked a lot like film. But with the release of the D300 and D3 Nikon seems as if they have really closed the gap in this department.
The Colors of Nikon
This is perhaps one of the best reasons to buy into the Nikon system at the moment. A group of my colleagues did a very impromptu test at one of the many photo conferences (I will not name anybody or brands), two of them had 2 brand new DSLRs one was a top of the line DSLR from another manufacturer with a pro grade zoom lens and the other was the dirt cheap D40 with its kit lens, they printed straight out of the camera jpegs, shooting the exact same subject. When they asked their peers which print they preferred, not knowing which came from what camera 8 out of 10 chose the print made by the lowly D40. When asked, they replied 'the colors look more vivid and perfectly saturated skin tones are perfectly captured compared to the other print'. I know this is hard to substantiate but I do see these colors from my Nikons everyday.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Welcome to my Nikon Blogsite
I have been a Nikon Camera User for just over 10 years now. In this blog I will share my knowledge about Nikon Cameras and Lenses, that I have personally used.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
