Apple Magic Mouse review

After waiting over a week for the Apple Magic Mouse to arrive, I finally received it over the weekend and had the opportunity to start working with it a few days ago. And in that time I've concluded that for the non-gamer it just might be the best mouse ever designed.

What makes the Magic Mouse so much better than its predecessor, the Mighty Mouse, is, well, everything.

In the previous rendition Apple added sensitivity to the click "buttons" and eliminated the actual need for an independent button for each side of the mouse.

That same philosophy carries over to the Magic Mouse with the entire device being really a single clicking button. The sensitive technology is still built in and though there are a few little hiccups that do carry over from its Mighty brother, the device overall is much better built and with a significantly more redefined sensitivity system.

Let's talk about the little issues that do carry over from the first generation all white mouse. For starters, as I've mentioned, there is only a single clicking surface. The mouse uses touch sensitivity to identify the intended task, e.g. the left or right click function. The one drawback of this - if it can be defined as such - is that for right-handed users you must raise your index finger in order to right click with your middle finger. If you don't the unit cannot distinguish your command and if anything will usually default to the standard left button click.

The mouse is ambidextrous programmable and because of its symmetrical design it is identical in use for both the left and right and, just tell the program (under system preferences) your desired orientation.

The mouse loses the twin side click surfaces found on the previous mouse. My opinion on that is - Thanks! They always activated undesirable features of the OS because I would accidentally grab them while working on a project or surfing the web. I finally deactivated those controls in the preferences menu. If you liked that feature, more power to you, but if you want the Magic you have to sacrifice that feature of the Mighty.

Though the most notable feature of the new mouse is the touch sensitivity, which I will discuss in a moment, one of the best features that I think new users will notice is the improved bottom design. The bottom is now almost entirely aluminum and smaller. The on off switch is very simple and the green light gives a clear indication of the connection - or lack there of. All of these nice design features out of the way however, and you'll notice what I think is one of the best features of this mouse - the sled base.

The previous base glided, and sometimes stuck, on a glossy plastic ring that ran the circumference of the mouse base. This would easily get covered in dirt and grime and you'd have to scrape it of with you nail or other hard instrument. Even then it never really "glided" to me.

The magic mouse rests on a pair of sled-like skis. These provide much smoother motion in my opinion and are better suited for extended use.

I have not idea if Apple redesigned the optical guide or not, but it seem more accurate and responsive.

Finally, we come to the touch sensitivity feature and the best feature not on the Magic mouse at all. The most improved feature of the mouse is without question the track ball. The previous version did let you do 360 degree navigation, but the ball would easily become dirty over time and it was virtually impossible to clean because Apple didn't make it user cleanable. I had both a wired and Blutooth version of the Mighty Mouse and both of them ran into this problem. One of them - the wired version - finally quit scrolling up all together.

The Magic Mouse eliminates this problem by incorporating Apple's touch technology to the mouse surface. Just like an iPhone or iPod Touch or the newer track pads on the MacBooks, the surface can respond to finger gestures. The sensitivity works effortlessly and is superb in both internet browsing and visual applications like iPhoto and Photoshop.

You will likely use it most often for scrolling up and down internet pages and for browsing through photos (left and right flicks), but you can also navigate around a large page or photo by simply directing your finger along the top of the surface. In addition, you can two finger flick to progress forward and back through pages in a single navigation window (i.e. you can two finger flick from right to left to view the previous page instead of clicking the "Back" button). You can also use the two finger gesture in other applications, but I find it really unnecessary at this time. Also, depending on your finger dexterity, you might actually find this task slightly complicated. Unlike a laptop track pad that stays still, allowing you to raise and lower your hand as a whole, you have to hold the mouse while doing it. I typically control the mouse with my thumb and little finger with my ring finger resting. When I try to two-finger flick, it is not exactly comfortable and the results can be interesting - depending on use - if you're not great at it like me.

So, if your a hand gymnast then you'll love this feature, but the two-finger flick is not my favorite part of the mouse and I rarely use it. Overall though, the scroll functionality is awesome, though sensitive and can cause unwanted moving in Photoshop at full screen or on the web.

In summary, the Magic Mouse is a more than worthy upgrade from the often problematic Mighty Mouse. The setup and functionality are very easy and the touch interface is incredibly useful and leave no more worry about dirt getting in the guide toggle. If you prefer more of an organic design with a higher rise to rest your palm or are a gamer who wants lots of buttons or a massive track ball, then look elsewhere. If you want a simple, elegant and well designed mouse that is likely to be maintanance free then the Apple Magic Mouse just might be for you.

Wacom Intuos4 review

I have been using a Wacom Intuos3 medium size graphics tablet for several years now. I have long been a fan of the benefits that the tablet provides, namely the pen/paper ergonomics for a more natural editing approach that a mouse, or worse, a track pad simply cannot duplicate.

The new Intuos4 offers more sensitivity, an elegant charcoal gray finish, illuminated task button indicators, a navigation wheel and convenient ambidextrous layout, an improved pen holder with multiple tips housed within and a thinner overall footprint.

The most notable improvement is the button layout and indicator lights. Previously, you had to remember which button did what and there were only four really. There where eight total, but only four could be used by the free hand on the appropriate side of the tablet while the other hand did the pen work. The new model offers eight buttons all on the same side of the device and the blue lit LEDs to the right of each button tell you what that button is designated for - a very helpful feature. The illumination can be adjusted to four different levels of brightness ranging from off to fully bright - also a great feature.

Images are from Wacom. Click on any image to go to the Wacom website.

The other thing missing from the previous generation is the touch sensitive slide groove that zoomed in and out of images and up and down pages and the like. It has been replaced by a rotary dial with a center select wheel. This not only zooms in and out of images, but also acts as a jog dial when accessing extended options with some of the other button sets. For example, in Photoshop CS4, when you select the first of the four jog indicator lights (there are four), the scroll wheel zooms in and out of the image. When you select the last jog dial indicator light, the scroll wheel rotates the image. The wheel is touch sensitive and does not actually move. The wheel also scrolls up and down on web pages. Each of the settings is fully customizable as is the touch sensitivity and speed.

I use the default settings, but the buttons are customizable to a wide variety of settings. The default are a question mark which gives you a heads up display on the computer monitor of the button configurations. The second button down brings up a virtual navigation menu on the monitor that features options for "command," "www", "media" and "e-mail". These will give you quick access to some of the most used sources on your computer. The latter three are pretty straight forward, but the Command feature might not be. It basically gives you quick access to features like save, cut, paste, undo, etc. Personally I don't use this button. I prefer keyboard shortcuts, well, on the keyboard.

The next button down is "Precision Mode" followed by "Display Toggle". The former, when activated, makes for more precise and less figity movements on-screen. This can help tremendously when drawing or outlining in a graphics program as it slows down the pointer for more control. This function only works while holding down the button and is not designed for prolonged use - it would tremendously slow down your work flow.

The later is a toggle that can be used when using multiple displays. This is hugely beneficial. If you have ever worked with multiple displays you know that the Wacom mapping stretches both screens by default. So, if you are working on a large display for example and want to move over to a palate on another screen, you could drag all the way back and forth. This can cause problems because you effectively change the range of motion when you spread the mapping over two monitors. The Toggle button can jump your mapping between screens and eliminates this problem. working on one display and want to access tools on another, just hit the button and the mapping jumps over to the other monitor. Press it again to jump back. The previous version might have offered something a little similar, but I never used it and it certainly was not this simple.

Below the wheel is another set of four function buttons that default to your most used options: shift, option, command (Apple) and move (hand). I leave my tablet to the default setting (but increased the brightness of the LEDs all the way up) and I have no problems with the standard setup. If you are used to the previous version the button layout will take a little getting used to, but will be better - I think you'll find - in the long run.

Other differences are in the actual sensitivity area. The surface is more of a matte finish and less smooth and glossy than the previous version - which I really liked. It might take some getting used to and I'd recommend trying all of the different pen tips to figure out which is best for you. I found that the standard black tip works best for me. You get on in the pen itself and five replacements. It also comes with three gray tips, one spring-loaded white tip and a slightly rubberized tip. They fit conveniently in the base of the pen holder so they wont get lost and the tip removal tool is there as well.

The pen is excellent and is over an inch shorter than the previous pen. The grip is not as slick as the version 3 pen and provides a more secure fit. The pen is fully customizable as well when it comes to the buttons and the grip cover. The Intuos4 also comes with a variety of ring colors that can be added to the tip area of the pen. This not only gives a color splash, but if you purchase additional pens and keep each supplied with a different tip, then you could color code which pen is which. Just a thought.

The unit also includes a mouse, but I never use it. It functions much like a normal mouse on the Wacom surface. I prefer just using the pen for everything or using my Apple Magic Mouse. I put mine back in the box.

Moving back to the tablet, there are a few other features that many users will really like. For one, the USB cord is REMOVABLE! On the Intuos three, you could not do this and had to wrap the cord around the tablet when you wanted to transport it. The new version is completely separate and you plug it in when you need it. Another great feature is the ability to choose your USB connection port. The tablet has two separate USB outlets that are selected by sliding a trap door up or down to reveal the appropriate port. This is excellent since right and left-handed users can now have the SAME tablet set up. For example, right-handed users will place the buttons and scroll wheel to the left and select the upper right USB port and choose the right-handed option in the system preferences menu. For left-handed users it's the opposite. The buttons are to the right and switching the trap door now allows the USB cord to be at the top on the left side of the unit. Selecting left-handed use from the preferences menu will tell the tablet to flip the LED icons properly.

Overall this is an exceptional tablet and superior in every way to the Intuos3. Does that make the previous version obsolete? Absolutely not. But it does make jumping to the newer version more worth the investment. At $350-400 for the medium size unit, the Wacom tablets are by no means cheap, but if you've never used one and do any type of photographic retouching or graphics work, you'll quickly wonder how you every worked without one. If you have an aging Intuos3 and are considering the upgrade, it is, in my opinion very much worth the cost. If you have no issues with your current unit and don't need the increase sensitivity or the increase button layout, then stick with what you have.

Conclusion: This is a wonderful accessory that is simply a must-have for professional photographers and graphic designers. It's feature set is the most complete of any tablet I've ever worked with and there are no drawbacks to mention save the slight difference in surface texture - which you get used to. The medium version is the perfect size for most users and the unit quickly pays for itself through precise selections and time saved. I wholeheartedly recommend the Wacom Intuos4 series graphics tablet.

Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II first impressions

Nikon announced the successor to the excellent AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens a few months ago and now the updated VR II version is slowly shipping to those who have been patiently awaiting its arrival.

The newer version promises improved VR (vibration reduction) performance, sharper images with more contrast and better color as well as the elimination (or vast reduction) of vignettes caused by the previous addition on FX (full frame) sensors.

Though I've only had my copy for a few days, I've done some very brief testing and have reported my findings here. I hope to a update this post when I have had more  time with this optic in the field.

For starters, the lens is about the same size and weight as the first generation. The new rendition is wider on the back end and carries this trait uniformly throughout it's length. The previous version was wide near the front element and tapered at the manual focusing ring to provide a narrower profile for the bulk of the body.

Click on any images to see them larger

The above image shows the previous edition (left) and the newer version (right). The newer lens is slightly shorter than the first generation and wider throughout. Overall, they feel about the same in terms of weight, but the newer version may be slightly better balanced in my opinion. I actually like the tapered ergonomics of the original lens, but it's not a deal-breaker for the new one.



The lens hood for the new model (show to the right) is significantly shorter and lighter than that which adorned the pervious lens (left). This results in a slightly less intrusive presentation and can make a notable difference when packing the lenses. The image below shows both versions of the lens with the hood mounted in the inverted position.



Because the lens is slightly narrower as a package when the hood is mounted, the newer version does make for slightly better packing. The overall length being shorter also helps in this arena. Though this can be negligible depending on your bag and how you pack your gear, it is noticeable in my Kata MC-61 where I pack the lens sideways.

Another place to note a difference in the lens hood is in the curvature of the long "petal" elements of the hoods. As seen below, the first version is flatter in nature than the newer one. The original version is also thicker and more sturdy overall. This has no impact on the hood's ability to reduce light falling in the lens, but will surprise some photographers who are prone to standing the lens on it's hood. Standing the lens up vertically, especially with a camera mounted, is not exactly good practice, but we sometimes do it. Especially if we are in an environment where lenses need to be changed quite a bit - like in the studio. One may line up the non-mounted lenses for quick access when changing optics. With round metal hoods like those on, say, the 85mm f/1.4 lens, this isn't a big deal (I keep mine on it while is packed), but for less stable flower petal style hoods this can be risky; especially in windy environments or where there is heavy traffic. This new hood really prevents you from being able to do that because the curvature of the longer petals is just significant enough to topple the lens if you try to rest it on it's hood. A word to the wise - don't do it.



One of the things I heard some of the pros discuss - when they got their hands on early releases of the lens - was an improvement in contrast, color and clarity (sharpness). They also claimed that the VR was noticeably better. I have not had enough time with the lens to comment on it's AF performance or low light VR abilities yet, but in my quick test shots, the lens does appear to deliver on the three "C"s as well as in the vignette department.

With the first generation, there was some distortion at the edges of the frame and some vignetting (dark halos at the image edge) on images taken with an FX sensor, particularly at wider apertures. Adjusting the camera's vignette correction control did help with this, but didn't completely eliminate it.

The newer version, just in my quick test fire images, did very well in edge distortion and vignetting. I don't shoot in a lab and analyze everything under a microscope like some reviewers. This is simply my feedback on real-world use. As a sports, wedding and portrait photographer I need fast, reliable glass that delivers the best image quality possible, and to me the new VR II makes strides in this area.

Below are two images shot using the pervious generation (left) and the updated version (right). My framing is slightly off, but the comparison should still show some notable results. The image of Jama (student assistant) on the right has more contrast and no vignetting. The image on the left shows slight vignetting at the far corners. Both images were shot at 200mm at ISO 400 at f/4 and 1/500th. Both images were shot handheld from a stable position with VR ON and in NORMAL mode. It was on an overcast day and there was no change in light as the images were shot just seconds apart. Even though framing is slightly off, the camera was set to center weighted metering and the images can be considered virtually identical.

The images below show a crop of the above images. The crops are exactly the same size and from the same location in the photographs. These crops were made to reveal sharpness and the slightly closer crop with the older lens (left) should give that version a very slight advantage over the image to the right, but the results show that the new VR II lens does seem to produce sharper images right out of the camera. I took a series of images at various focal lengths and settings and tried to pick the two that were most similar in every way to be fair.

The image on the right is noticeable sharper than the image to the left. This was consistent with various images taken at the same time.

Is this exhaustive proof that the newer VR II is hands down the better optic by far? No. But from my brief experience it does seem to be an improvement and produces images that are equal to the previous version at worst and significantly better at best. Is it worth $500 more than the original version? That remains to be seen from a full blown handling and results perspective, but from the preliminary results, on an FX sensor, I'd have to say, for me, yes. I shoot sports, weddings, portraits, album artwork and more, and if there is a lens available that arguably produces better contrast and more sharpness and may work better in low light, then it's worth the extra coin. I want the best images I can get right out of the camera and, so far, the VR II is proving itself.

I will likely not do a follow-up side by side comparison, rather simply remark on the handling and overall performance differences after I have a few thousand images under my belt. I'll be using it to do some portraits, action shots and a wedding in the next several weeks and hope to get another article up toward the beginning of the year.

As a side note, if you use the Really Right Stuff system, their website indicates that the replacement foot they designed for the original lens will also work with the VR II. It does slide on and lock down easily, but the new lens has a slight taper on the slide plate and this results in a slightly downward angling of the lens. This is not decremental, simply adjust the head backward, but it should be noted just in case.

As always, I'm simply one voice in a million. I don't have a degree in physics and am not an imaging expert. I am, however, a professional who takes his artwork seriously and my reviews are my opinions based on products I have personally used and/or own. I am not compensated in any way for my opinions. I place them here for the benefit of others and to offer a perspective that can be added to the comments and tests of others to provide potential buyers with a broader scope with which to arm themselves when considering new or used equipment.

Until next time, happy shooting.

- R

Pretty please Nikon...

Call me a back and forth kind of photographer, but I like shooting with the gear that best matches my shooting situations. I started off with a Canon camera when I shot 35mm film; a camera that I got for Christmas from my mother when I was in my mid teens. After my wife and I got married, we decided to take a weekend trip to Sedona, Arizona, to shoot the red rocks and nearby rivers and streams. Upon leaving town I realized the iris in my 35mm lens was hung so we went to the mall to get a new one. When we returned to our trip I had a new Nikon film camera with a few third party lenses.

When the D70 became available I quickly switched to digital for the work flow convenience and speed. Later I bumped up to the D2X and never had any issues. Then the price of the Canon EOS 5D began to drop and the "affordable" full frame was enough to draw me back to Canon. I wanted the high resolution and full frame for my graphics and wedding work and acquired a used 1D Mark II for my sports shooting.

The 5D eventually ran into a problem with the batter terminal and I had to send it off for repair which Canon did for free, minus shipping. Then the shutter went out on the 1D Mark II at about 120,000 actuations (less than half the rated value) and I had to send it to Atlanta to get fixed - $350. Then my 50mm f/1.8 quit focusing and started grinding. I sent it off to Canon and again the fixed it for free minus shipping.

When Nikon released the D300 I moved back over to Nikon. It was the first affordable camera that would shoot 8 fps (with the grip) and the noise control was way better than the D2X. Then came the announcement of the D3 followed by the D700. I sold my D300 and went for the D700.

For my type of shooting the D700 is about 95% perfect. It's about the size and cost of the 5D, has the full frame FX sensor, knock your socks off noise control, better build (in my opinion) and will rack off 8 fps with the grip just like the D300. Because I shoot sports, portraits, weddings and large promotional graphic materials, I need all of these features. If anything, I wish the sensor had a tad more resolution to offer than the 12 MP, but for most stuff it's more than fine. An 18MP would be about perfect if it could hold the noise levels that the D700 currently does at 1600-6400.

So, what is it that Nikon doesn't currently offer that I (ok, EVERY Nikon shooter) want to see? Faster primes with newer technology! We were dying for a revamped 70-200mm for better performance on FX and we finally got it (well, in Nov.). We also recently got an AF-S version of the 50mm which is a tad slow on the AF, but quiet and accurate. Now, we need updates to the 35mm, 85mm and 135mm. I'd love to see an AF-S 35mm Nikkor f/1.4G , an AF-S 85mm f/1.4G VRII N and an AF-S 135mm f/2 VR II N. While we're at it, give us a AF-S 24mm f/1.4G too.

This is one area that Nikon has trailed the pack, especially  Canon. They now offer more camera bodies than anyone else, but their lens upgrades are really coming slowly. The old AF D versions are fantastic (if available), but all of these state of the art bodies - especially the D700, D3 and D3X - could use the newer glass.

Nikon, stop worrying about putting HD video in every camera model and calling it "New". If we get a D3s that just adds video I'm going to throw up. Bump the resolution, keep the same noise control, and video then we'll bite - maybe, but adding video and an "s" isn't going to change the minds of that many users.

Canon is far and away the optics leader with regard to speed, IS (VR equivalent) and USM (AF-S equivalent). We need some faster glass with AF-S and the N features. Throw VR into the 85 and 135 and you take a huge lead even if your 85 isn't a 1.2.

I considered moving back to Canon because of the faster glass, but I'm sticking with my Nikon. I love it more than any Canon I've fired and they've always been more reliable, but I'm begging you Nikon, PLEASE give us some newer optics!

Other things I'd love to see:

D700x for $3,200 or less (I'll just keep dreaming. Even if the camera does show up in late 2010, that price is a fantasy)

AF-S 80-400mm f/4-5.6VR II N

AF-S 100-500mm f/4-5.6 VR II N

Video tour and review of Kata's MC-61 bag

Hands-on reviews and product tours coming soon

If you're at all like me you try to find out as much about new products as possible before dropping a lump of cash down. However, many of these new products, especially the less mechanical releases, have few, if any, reviews or real-life tours. Don't get me wrong, most manufacturers do a solid job of posting photos and, on occasion, video tours. But most companies have such a broad spectrum of products that it's nearly impossible to do an extensive job in all areas.

So, in order to better help our fellow photographers out there, I've decided to try and put together some short videos that give you either a first look at a product from a true perspective or a personal review of its easy of use and practicality. I don't plan on doing a lot of camera and lens evaluations because there are much more qualified professionals out there that run tests that, honestly, I don't even always understand. Besides, we all know that sooner or later a host of these sites will likely have a review of almost everything that hits the street from the major manufactures.

Look for our videos to focus more on the equipment that is so often seemingly left out of the loop. Items such as light stands, brackets, reflectors, carrying cases, light modifiers and accessories. Remember, these wont necessarily be exclusive looks at these products, but rather and opportunity for you to see them outside of the manufacture's propaganda, which is really only aimed at the pros of the item, as well as some of our likes and dislikes and potentially alternate uses. The following is a list of items I hope to take a look at soon. Note, the hyperlink will take you to the product page on the B&H website:

*The Kata MC-61 DSLR/ProHD camera bag (it's tough to even find photos of this bag outside of the Kata site and video tours/reviews are practically nonexistent. Even  B&H has only 3 reviews of the item. I usually try to add my two cents there too.)

*Manfrotto 1051BAC mini stackable light stand (this will focus on the design and functionality of this new stand and compare it with the previous version, the 305B mini stacker)

*Manfrotto 1005BAC Alu Ranker Light Stand (this will focus on the design and functionality as well, with a comparison between it and the 307B Stacker)

*Lastolite TriGrip Bracket (let's face it, Lastolite is one of the manufacturers that does an outstanding job of producing product demos for potential clients. This video will focus more on the construction and limitations of the device as well as it's ease of use and practicality for photographers)

*Lastolite TriGrip Diffuser 48" and TriGrip Sunlite/Soft Silver 30" (these will likely be reviewed both independently and with the above mentioned TriGrip bracket)

*Photoflex LiteDome Q39 XL Softbox (this video will give you a real world look at the size and functionality of Photoflex's largest rectangular softbox for strobes)

*Photoflex LiteDome Q39 Large and Medium Softboxes (this video will also give you a real world look at the two most common softbox sizes. Because they are exactly the same only different sizes, they will be combined into a single video. We will also take a look at the softbox grid as well)

*Photoflex LiteDome Q39 XS along with the Basic Speed Ring Adapter and Adjustable Shoe Mount Connector (the XS LiteDome can be used with both a studio strobe and a shoe-mount speedlight with the help of the mentioned adaptors. We will take a look at the softbox and how it works with both of theses lighting systems)

Hopefully some of these reviews will help both budding and professional photographers get a look at some new, and or different, equipment before they spend loads of money on stuff that may or may not work for them. In all of this, it really my hope that at least one person finds the information useful.

I'm slammed right now at work preparing all of the athletic graphics for the first four fall sports at the university and I'm trying to wrap up some wedding work, but I assure you, I will try to begin work on some of these videos soon.

Take care and happy shooting.

-R

Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX, an excellent companion

I recently ventured to the other side of the world to visit some friends and help with some work in the beautiful country of Turkey. Our travels would take us to Antalya  and Olimpos (Olympos) on the Mediterranean Sea and Istanbul to the north. Because the nature of my work there was not photographic, I decided it best not to carry tons of expensive gear with me. I would normally pack my D700, at least four fast lenses, multiple flashes with off-camera triggering equipment and a tripod as a minimum. This time around I was rock'n a Nikon D40 with a 16GB Kingston SD card ($34 via B&H) - no laptop to dump to (crazy I know), an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens, my trusty SB-800 and an Alien Bees wireless transmitter and receiver set just in case. I decided to preorder the new 35mm f/1.8 DX lens (for a very reasonable $199 I might add) for it's speed in low light and its relatively wide focal length, especially for a DX prime. I figured this would be the best bang-for-buck lens for interior pictures, especially those in museums, etc.

Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX lens - photo from Nikonusa.com - click on the image to link to that page

The first thing one will notice about this lens is its size. Its short, well constructed and very light. It comes with a securely locking lens hood and couples perfectly with the D40. The AF is quick and quiet thanks to the AF-S motor and under all but the absolute worst lighting situations its spot on.

Inside a Mosque in Antalya - shot at f/2 in available light.

I did notice some chromatic aberrations (purple fringing) in some images with extreme contrast. This is particularly noticeable inside buildings with brightly lit windows. Lens flare is also common in similar situations, but nothing particularly damaging, especially for a $200 lens shot wide open.

Tablet in the Istanbul Archeology Museum - shot at f/2 in available light

Jesus from the The Deësis Mosaic in the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul - shot at f/2 in available light

The lens is well suited for standard focal length shooting. The crop factor produces results very close to those from a 50mm on a full frame camera. The lens is so small and light weight that it is superbly convenient to leave mounted on your camera. However, the lens really shines in low light photography. Given that most shooters will be accustomed to their 18-55mm with a maximum aperture of f/3.5, the added stops capable with the f/1.8 aperture are truly stunning. The faster glass will allow users to shoot at lower ISOs and faster shutter speeds, both of which can dramatically improve image quality and shooting time.

My very good friend Andrew in front of the tear-drop style column in the Basilica Cistern (532 AD) in Istanbul - shot at f/1.8 in available light.

This lens is not perfect, but given the new arena now available to DX shooters it can easily be considered a must-have. The few minor issues I experienced (fringing and flare under harsh contrast) in no way deter from the exceptional speed and performance of this stunning little lens. It wont give you the widest focal length, but for the speed, it is virtually unmatched and at $200 it's a steal. I would highly recommend this lens to anyone how travels or often finds themselves looking for shallower depth of field or in low light situations. It may be out of stock when you look for it, but it's definitely worth the wait.

Istanbul's Basilica Cistern - shot at f/1.8 in available light (camera steadied on railing)

DIY Studio Diffusers for Grids and Barn Doors

I was thinking about the lighting setup I discussed on March 2 and was contemplating the hard directional light put out by studio strobes when coupled with honeycomb grids or barn doors. We want the tight, directional light to chisel, highlight, rim light and otherwise focus on specific elements within the photograph. The problem, is that light is still a hard source.

Think about it, it's a bare bulb flash in a highly reflective dish projected directly outward. Even though it has a controlled spread, it is still not a diffused source. How can we improve on this? Now, maybe I'm behind in the game, which is entirely possible, but I experimented with some solutions that actually worked pretty well.

To diffuse the light, we need it to pass through some sort of opaque material. This will soften the light, creating softer shadows. This will really come in handy when working with models and skin tones and textures in general. The object then is to figure out how to get a diffusion material in front of these modifiers.

Now, some lighting companies may have already solved this problem, but as of today, Alien Bees, the brand I currently use, doesn't offer anything in this arena. Paul C. Buff does offer a diffusion sock for the 22" Beauty Dish and they recently added a 40 degree grid, but there is nothing for the standard reflectors and grids and barn doors, etc. So, how do we create this softening?

Well the first thing we could do is go with the idea that is offered by Alien Bees with the Beauty Dish and that is to add a diffusion material, or sock, over the front end. This will work, but I'm not sure how much spread will be gained - and this is what we don't want when using a grid - by having it on the outside of the grid.  This would basically create a small softbox, but even though softboxes are far more directional than, say ,an umbrella - which is sort of like comparing an open reflector with a gridded one - they still produce light spill and wrap. The solution even for softboxes is to put the grid in front of the diffusion screen. That way the already softened light is passing through the focusing grid. So, for me, the sock idea was sort of out since it somewhat defeats the purpose of what I was going for.

The second, and perhaps most logical and effective method, is to place a diffusion material behind the grid and barn doors, etc., much like we do on a gridded softbox. To do this, I went to my local Home Depot to look for some diffusion material and what better place to look than the actual light diffusers. Large fluorescent light fixtures that you often find, say, in a kitchen or a garage come with plastic diffusion screens to diffuse and spread the light. Perfect.

These come in a variety of finishes and sizes. The most common seems to be the prism texture. It features a series of little pyramids that help diffuse the light. This might work fine, but I was looking for something thinner as the space in the lip of the reflector dish is very shallow and the grid still has to fit. I couldn't find what I was looking for so I asked and the gentleman directed me to the back of the store in building supplies. There I found the same prism material, but also the cross hatched elevator light coverings - which might make a good grid for a DIY light source! - and a different diffuser for lights that looked like fine stained glass or small stone (see image below). This pattern was slightly thinner than the other so I picked up a 2'x4' sheet of the acrylic material for about $9. This is way more than you'd need, but its also very brittle - in fact mine broke from slightly folding it by accident when trying to put it in the car. Big deal, I'm going to cut it anyway.

Before I could get back to work to try out the idea, I had to stop by Wal-Mart to pick up a few things and while there I traveled through the kitchen appliance isle and came across cutting boards. Now, I had noticed them before, but it hadn't occurred to me until then that the thin, white  cutting mats would make great little diffusers. So, I picked up a pack of three (about 14"x18" or so) for $3 just to compare the two.

Acrylic material cut to size

Cutting mat cut to size

Once home, I took out one of the 7" honeycomb grids and used a Sharpie to trace the edge onto both materials. I then used scissors to cut the mat - very easy -  and heavy duty hand shears to cut the acrylic. Note: you can do it with scissors, but it's very brittle and cracks easily. Try the shears if you choose to work with this material.

I did not have a human subject so I used an orange. It's got a dippled surface and is moderately reflective so I figured it would give me some feedback. Below are the results.

Alien Bees 800 w/ reflector dish - no diffusion

Alien Bees 800 w/ reflector dish - acrylic diffusion

Alien Bees 800 w/ reflector dish - cutting mat diffusion

The first picture is of the orange shot with an Alien Bees 800 strobe with the standard reflector only. The second picture is with the acrylic diffuser in place and the third is with the cutting mat diffuser in place. As you can see the diffusers pull the highlight intensity down and soften the shadows. I did various tests with barn doors and grids - and yes they both fit well behind the grid - with similar results. I chose to use the non-focused images so as not to create any misguided shadows, etc. from the accessories.

I then took a meter reading to compare the differences. The settings on the 800 were not recorded as they are not essential for this test since I was just looking for the output difference between the non-diffused light and the two diffused sources. No settings were changed between the three meter tests.

The bare flash with reflector clocked in at f/11. Both the acrylic diffuser and mat diffuser produced very comparable results right around f/8. It would be a safe estimate that the diffusers reduce the light output by one stop which is pretty respectable. The results were not surprising since the images of the two are so similar.

For me, I'd go with the cutting mat. Why? It produced nearly identical results both in quality and light loss and is much easier to cut and store. The acrylic that I used was good, but simply too brittle for long term use, especially when travel might be involved.

CAUTION!!!: I have no idea how long term or high intensity use will effect the integrity of these materials! The cutting mat material is not designed for use with lighting and the acrylic, though used with lighting diffusion by nature, is NOT designed for strobes or high temperature modeling lamps. Florescent lights give off almost no heat so are very tame when it comes to material eroding. I use 100 watt light bulbs as modeling lamps and when you couple them with the grids the diffusers come very close to touching the bulb and might actually make contact in some cases. If you've every pulled a metal grid off of a strobe after even 5 minutes of use near a modeling lamp, you know that the temperatures are quite hot. For safety reasons, I'd recommend turning off the modeling lamp completely or removing it all together. The strobe will generate heat, but in short controlled bursts. You are still best served by checking the integrity of the diffuser from time to time. Alien Bees does not recommend such diffusion materials and will therefore not cover any problems that might be caused by this lighting setup. Use at your own risk. I would be remiss if I failed to mention the possibility of fire as a result of strobe misuse. Always follow the instructions provided by your equipment manufacturer. As with any DIY project, homemade solutions can present risk of equipment malfunction or failure and personal injury. Though I feel this solution is safe under the listed circumstance, I am not an electrical or mechanical expert and am not responsible for any problems that may arise from improper use.

Nikon, more fast primes please...

I thought I'd take a break from the lighting setup posts to do a bit of commentary on equipment. No, I'm not an authority on equipment, nor have I obtained or worked with the variety of gear that many professionals have, but I do have some comments that I'd like to throw out there just for fun.

I am a Nikon shooter, as you know, and the biggest complaint disappointment I currently have with the Nikon line is its lack of vast prime lenses. Now, Nikon does have a bunch of legendary glass that still outshines a lot of newer gear by some manufacturers, but it's about time that Nikon kick the line up a notch and introduce some new optics.

This may very well be in the works, but it has taken the company a painful amount of time to bring this to the table. Nikon has introduced two new AF-S primes as of late with the 50mm f/1.4 and the newly released 35mm f/1.8. The price of the AF-S 50mm is nearly double that of it's predecessor, but does give users the AF-S feature. Why is this good? Three primary reasons; faster focusing - especially in low light, quieter focusing and compatibility with the intro bodies like the fabulous D40/D40x and D60.

The newest release, the 35mm, is unfortunately, a DX format lens, making it specifically geared toward the D300, D90/80 and lower end bodies. This isn't a bad thing exactly, but it limits FX (full frame) users to the older 35mm f/2D lens that lacks the AF-S feature and is a bit slower wide open. It's a great play by Nikon - introducing a DX specific lens to the masses, but it leaves pro shooters and owners of the FX cameras scratching their heads. Yes, the high ISO output is better on these cameras, but that does not help low-light AF and quieter performance.

I would have loved an FX compatible version of the 35mm. It acts like a 50mm (give or take) on the DX bodies, but would have provided FX shooters with a nice wide angle alternative. It is also $300 cheaper than the 50mm and given the focal differences would have been a nice alternative for FX shooters - though the price would likely have been higher for the full frame version.

Other than these two lenses, Nikon offers NO fast AF-S glass. The stunning 85mm f/1.4D is likely the next target for the revamp and the lens would likely find itself on back order before it even hit shelves. Nikon also has older 105mm and 135mm f/2 DC lenses that many would love to see in a state of the art format. One of Canon's most popular telephotos is the 135mm f/2L USM. It is fast, quiet and tack sharp and can be had for just under $1,000 - a steal for such and optic.

Nikon jumped out with the staggeringly good 200mm f/2 AF-S VR lens very early in the game. They did not create it for FX  sensors specifically because the lens predates that release (thought it was a fine pairing with film), but it offered fast AF, stunning bokeh, and VR in a rock solid housing. The lens costs $4,000, but for those with the need and the cash, it's a must have tool.

Nikon has other lenses that can certainly use a makeover like the 80-400mm VR, which was/is very popular even though glaciers move faster than the AF motor. The excellent 70-200mm f/2.8 VR could use a tweak as well with the advent of the very good N series lenses like the 14-24mm and 24-70mm as well as the pairing with the FX sensor where this lens exhibits pronounced vignetting.

So, in a nutshell, what would I, and I believe most pro shooters (especially portrait, sports and wedding photographers) really like to see released?

1. 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VRII N


2. 85mm f/1.4 AF-S N


3. 135mm f/2 AF-S N (VRII ? - unlikely)


4. 28mm f/1.4 AF-S N (or something wider than 50mm and at least at f/2) - this sucker would be expensive

This might be a wish list, but I know that virtually all of these would find their way into 90 percent or more of the pro kits out there. Nikon has promised more lens releases this year. Let's hope that they update the prime line in the process.

More beauty lighting with a pair of strobes

Eden Harris

It's been a bit since my last post, needless to say, I've been crazy busy. This will be a relatively short post and will take the topic of the last post on two source beauty lighting in a different direction.

Last time, I talked about "clam shell" lighting. Basically, it consists of a diffused light source at 45 degrees above and below the subject in the portrait environment. Here, I've moved the sources into a cross-lighting setup. The interesting thing about this particular setup is that it incorporates no diffusion. The main light is positioned to camera left at about 45 degrees. The light is an Alien Bees 800 series strobe with a standard reflector and a 30 degree honeycomb grid attached. This concentrates the light, allowing for both limited spill and less power. One could use a beauty dish in this setting as well, though, without a grid, it will produce a larger light cast.

Erin Pierce

The second light is also and Alien Bee's 800 fixed with a standard reflector and a set of barn doors. The vertical doors are closed down allowing only about a two inch beam of light. The top and bottom flaps (the horizontal doors) are wide open. I find this allows more directional light over a longer plane than, say, a snoot or honeycomb grid. I wanted the light to travel from the head down the back and arm to provide a more complete rim light.

The lighting setup was the same for both models, but arranged in opposite directions for each subject. Eden (top picture in the post and last) was shot using the setup shown below. Erin (above) was photographed with the main light to the right and the rim light to the left. Note how much coverage the barn doors allow down the back of the subject. It is especially evident in the pictures of Eden as I have her positioned at a harder angle to the camera. Both models have easy-going and bright personalities which makes working with them easy and fun. The poses were done from a run of the mill  school chair. The glare that the legs and back of the seat produced in some of the images was removed in post.

Cross-lighting setup

I failed to record the power output settings on the strobes, but it was significantly less power than required with diffusion. The images were shot with a Nikon D700 in RAW mode with a 70-200mm lens at f/8 at 1/250th. They were rotated and a few minor tweaks were performed in Aperture before dumping them off to Photoshop CS4.

The great thing about this setup is that it introduces virtually no light spill onto the backdrop. That is further controlled by the fast shutter speed. I have to admit, this was an improvised scenario. We began the shoot with the clam shell configuration - but this time in the vertical orientation (i.e. the lights were 45 to the left and right than from above and below). That setup produced some wonderful images, but I really wanted to go a different route, so for the last 30 minutes I decided to try this setup and loved it.

Eden Harris

When you have photogenic subjects, more than half the work is done for you, and when you throw in a talented makeup artist like Wendy Riley (whom I also had the pleasure of working with on the previous shoot on beauty lighting) things get even easier.  But even the world's top models have their images retouched (heavily) for print and advertising work. These images needed some attention, but nothing super serious. Mostly I just removed a few distracting flyaway hairs and then evened out the skin tones. This was done using Photoshop CS4 with the healing brush, the clone stamp tool and layer blending with the blur filter, etc. I'm not a Photoshop expert, I just try to learn the techniques that best serve my style of photography and work with them. Photoshop geniuses like Scott Kelby and others are the defacto source for learning better Photoshop skills. Give them a Google to learn more tips and tricks.

This is a super simple lighting setup that is capable of producing some magnificent results. You have to be more careful with you r light placement and subject position when dealing with non-diffused lighting as it drastically increases shadows as well light hardness. The end results are worth the extra attention to detail as it produces a classic Hollywood sort of elegance, perfect for less traditional beauty lighting.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

- R

Two Light Beauty Lighting

Shirley DeArmas

Over the weekend I had the pleasure of working with two models on an independent photo shoot. With nearly every click of the shutter going toward university work or wedding events lately, I have had little time to work on shooting for my portfolio - and perhaps more importantly, just for fun.

Shirley DeArmas and Nikki Jagt were kind enough to trade half of their Saturday in exchange for some free images. I in turn gained two models and a collection of beautiful images. We opened the studio doors around 9 a.m. and we wrapped about 2 p.m. I hauled lighting gear and worked on the setup and calibration while the girls were in makeup, courtesy of the very talented Wendy Riley. The actual shoot went about 2-2.5 hours and the shot selection produced was incredible.

Nikki Jagt

For more than half of the shoot, I used a classic beauty lighting setup that provided smooth, elegant lighting. All of these shots were focused on the waist up. For the final third of the shoot I adjusted the lighting to a four light setup to cover more full body shots. The four light scenario may be discussed in a future post, but for now I'd like to focus on beauty lighting.

Beauty lighting is a general title assigned to shooting scenarios where the main purpose is to provide even illumination from top to bottom, and at times, from left to right. It can be used for a variety of subjects, but is typically used on females in 2/3 portrait or tighter. You'll see it in advertisements for makeup and skin cleansers as well in model portfolios.  This can be achieved in numerous ways and different photographers favor different approaches. Some setups include a beauty dish over head with a fill card below the face, a ring light with diffuser and what is referred to as clam shell lighting - which is the setup discussed here.

Shirley DeArmas

Clam shell lighting consists of a pair of diffused light sources positioned above and below the model and tilted about 45 degrees toward the subject. The setup looks like an open clam shell, hence the name. The lights will obviously be in front of the model, and the tilt of the lights will cast overlapping light on the subject, providing a nice, smooth, even illumination. To further enhance the setup I added a pair of white reflectors, one on either side of the model, to kick some light back into the sides of the face and body.

Nikki Jagt

The diagram below shows the setup from the side. As you can see, the softboxes are positioned about 45 degrees above and below the model with the two reflectors on either side. Note that the closest reflector has a reduced opacity to allow for a more three dimensional look at the scenario. The setup works best if the upper light is placed on a boom because the images are actually shot throw the opening between the softboxes and the obstruction of a light stand will prove extremely frustrating. It is worth noting that this same setup can be achieved with off-camera strobe like your Nikon, Canon or other portable flashes. Keep in mind, it will be harder to parallel the power of the studio strobes, but you can certainly compensate for this by adjusting your exposure settings. These images were shot using a pair Alien Bees 800 lights in the foldable medium and large softboxes. The reflectors can be anything from poster board to foam core to collapsible reflectors. I used a pair of Photoflex light panels with the diffusion surfaces to bounce the light. The images were shot at ISO 50 at 1/250th at f/8. The lights were set to approximately one quarter output, but were adjusted using the Alien Bees LG4X wired remote control for the variation in skin tones and wardrobe color and materials.

A little retouching was done in Photoshop. The basics apply here. I removed the blemishes not concealed by the makeup, improved contrast a bit around the eyes and softened the skin. Ta-da! It's really the same thing you would do for any portrait retouching, with the exception (maybe) of the skin softening. It's really just a  duplicated layer with 2-2.5 pixel Gaussian blur added. Then the layer opacity is reduced to 30-40 percent and then the important features - i.e. everything but the skin - are erased, revealing the original layer, and then the layers are flattened. Presto. You may use other methods for this, but I'm not a Photoshp expert. I just use what seems to work for me.

As you can see, the lighting is breathtaking, but having beautiful models certainly doesn't hurt. This is a relatively simple lighting setup and it can produce spectacular results. Combine this method with elegant subjects and a laid back, fun atmosphere and the results will certainly not disappoint.

Until next time, happy shooting.

- R

Good Deals on Cameras

I am sure everyone is aware by now, but Circuit City is going out of business in the US. Normally, saving a few percent on camera gear at the retail level doesn't really force the avid shooters and professionals to stir that much, but with the closings and heavy discounts currently available, now is a great time to look at improving your equipment set while saving some coin.

Depending on your market, obviously, availability and pricing will differ, but here in central Alabama, there are some very strong deals for those looking to upgrade or add to their gear. Usually I recommend a major online distributor like B&H Photo or Adorama, but some of the prices at Circuit City now equal to or lower than those from these companies.

For example, B&H sells the Nikon D80 (our store does not have the D90) with the 18-135mm lens for $730. Today, Circuit City's price in Montgomery was $720. Taxes and shipping will just about cancel out, making the retail find a good deal. Prices will continue to fall on remaining stock so check your local stores to determine if a deal is nearby. Flashes and lenses here are now about equal to the B&H price or hovering just north of it, but if stock remains available over the coming week, expect further price reductions.

Point-and-shoot cameras are also a good deal right now, including those aimed at a higher level of shooter like the Canon G10 and the Nikon P6000. Both are now $100 off regular retail. That puts the Canon at about only $10 under the online price, but puts the Nikon between $50-100 lower (B&H is offering an instant rebate of $50 on it). All accessories here are 20-30% off so if you need some UV filters, small bags, rechargeable batteries and the like, they are also had at great prices. Beware of the memory card prices though, B&H and Adorama usually have these at the very best deals around - unless you need them immediately.

Be careful and make sure you're still getting a deal though. Not all cameras are less expensive just because they are marked down. Take your iPhone and check the prices against reputable online vendors like those listed above. Also, you should consider, that during this liquidation 'All Sales Are Final.' If you have any reservation about this, you should hold off and acquire your equipment from a source we expect to be around a bit longer.

Until next time, happy shooting and money saving.

- R

Shooting Concerts

Charlie Hall at the 2009 Gulf Coast Getaway

This will be a relatively short post and for many viewers, probably something you already know. I have been doing more and more concerts as of late, in fact, three in the last five months or so. This is not as many as I used to shoot when covering bands in Phoenix, Arizona, but considering the type of work I've been doing and the amount of free time I've had, it's quite a bit.

Aaron Keys

Since this blog was designed to help everyone from the beginner to the experienced artist, I figured this post would be beneficial to many, especially those whom have asked about the kind of gear and settings to use when shooting such events.

Rush of Fools

The biggest mistake most photographers make when attempting to shoot a concert is to use flash. AVOID IT! Flash, especially when not properly calibrated, will blow out the beautiful light given off by the production crew. Stage lights change and a punch to the images that can't be duplicated otherwise. My advice, when shooting a concert, leave the strobes at home.

The basic gear should include a digital SLR and, preferably, some fast prime lenses. Some favorites of those in the field include the 35mm f/1.4 to f/2, a fast 50mm like an f/1.8 or f/1.4, an 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, the 135mm f/2 and for the accomplished and/or well-paid shooter a 200mm f/1.4 or f/2 with VR or IS (vibration reduction - Nikon or image stabilizer - Canon). Good f/2.8 lenses (especially zooms) can come in handy, but you'll likely have to boost your ISO by at least a stop or sacrifice some shutter speed.

You of course don't need all of these focal lengths, but these are some of the fastest and sharpest lenses available. I love shooting with a 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.4 depending on the venue and my access to the stage. The Nikon versions are both incredibly sharp and produce very good results wide open. Depending on the lighting setup, the actual camera settings will fluctuate, but typically in a semi-professional to professional concert, I can shoot at about 1/125th-1/400th at f/1.4-f/4 at about ISO 800.

For example: the top image of artist Charlie Hall was at the most recent concert I shot and it was captured at ISO 800 at 1/2ooth at f/1.4 on my D700 with my 85mm attached. Other images were captured as high as 1/400th at f/2-4 depending on the light intensity and the desired contrast in the final image.

The toughest camera setting is usually the white balance. Although 'Auto' can produce acceptable results, programing the Kelvin when possible greatly increases the color accuracy. When the stage lights have a tendency to hold a certain color, for example, rolling through the Kelvin settings and then checking the LCD will provide you with more desirable results. This is not always possible due to erratic lighting patterns, etc., but attempting to do this will greatly help your final product.

You don't need expensive gear to shoot good concert pics. A basic DSLR that is capable of producing desirable results at ISO 800 coupled with an inexpensive 50mm f/1.8 will usually provide you a great starting point. Keep in mind that entry level cameras like the Nikon D40, for example, will not auto focus non-AFS lenses. The new AF-S 50mm f/1.4 will work, but the lens runs about $480 compared to the $110 price tag on the f/1.8.

Arguably the most important element of a concert shoot is familiarity with your gear. I probably adjust my camera settings 100 or more times during a 1-2 hour concert. Aperture, ISO, shutter speed, white balance and focusing point adjustments are made often and rapidly, in addition to switching between manual and auto focusing. Knowing your gear and being able to manipulate it quickly are key to any successful shoot, but become paramount when shooting in low, rapidly changing light.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

- R

"He's On Fire" - Shoot For The Basketball Poster

The above image is from last year's basketball poster at Faulkner University. There were five seniors last year, all of whom were to be featured on the poster. I really wanted to try something new, so I talked with the guys about doing a fire theme. Faulkner's colors are royal blue, black, gray and white and I thought it would be cool if we went with, well, a "cool" blue theme. This was the most challenging undertaking I had last year, but it was worth the effort. Here is a bit about how I went about it.

The first thing I needed to do was shoot the athletes. The above image is of then-senior guard Richarde McCray out of Marietta, Georgia. I shot each guy doing a different move - I had Rich doing a layup.

The lighting setup is shown below and is VERY simple. I bounced an SB-800 into a silver Westcott umbrella to give harder light and moved it back a bit in order to 1.) cover him completely, 2.) to ensure that it would cover him in the zone of approach. I didn't pose them in action situations, I actually made them do the full motion so it would look natural - or as natural as possible with a guy holding a flaming ball. I gave Rich a jump marker and then tacked him with the continuous servo mode on my D200. I shot about 10-15 frames and liked this one the best.

The image below is the unprocessed RAW right out of camera. The main light was a diffused SB-28 shot through a translucent Westcott umbrella. This light illuminates Rich with a soft glow that gives just enough light, while the stronger rear light provides good contrast as a rim light. I shot this from a low angle to add to the drama of the image. The diffused light is shot from about my height (kneeling) and aimed upward.

I shot it at f/4 and 1/200th of a second at ISO 200. The lighting was enough to overpower the majority of the gym lights as is evident in the fixtures behind Rich.

I imported the RAW image into Aperture adding a bunch of alignment adjustments and then exported the JPEG into Photoshop. The first thing to do was remove the background completely, then to ad various effects for the final image. All of the steps were not recorded (again, then I was not planning on doing a blog), but the general ideas are as follows.

A new layer for the ball was added and I changed it to a soft blue. I then added the 'Wind' filter and manipulated the flames with the blur tool. After achieving a hot rod effect I used the transform tool to give the flame a path that paralleled the action. I then placed a duplicate ball layer over the flame layer and added some glow to it.

I added blue filters to Rich and adjusted the saturation as needed. I dodged and burned as well to try and simulate the reflections in relation to the light source, in this case the ball. There are certainly places that catch some blue light that likely would not have, but the poster was already black and I needed as much of the athletes visible as possible.

There was a lot of trial and error on the flames and a lot of starting over. I am by no means a Photoshop wizard, but I thought it came out pretty good. I will likely try to build on this idea again in the future, but for now, I'm experimenting elsewhere. Sorry there were not more details in this post, but I hope you found it interesting and that maybe it sparked your imagination.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

The Nikon D700... Simply Awesome

I always hesitate to do 'equipment reviews' because inevitably I will wind up making someone unhappy because I don't like this or that brand. So, before I get into MY PERSONAL likes and dislikes I want to offer a disclaimer. I use Nikon equipment - big deal. I have also, in years past, used Canon equipment. Before I got into digital I used Pentax and older manual-only Minoltas. I use Nikon because I want to. It does not make them the best out there, nor does it insinuate that equipment from other manufactures is rubbish. Far from it. I think that there is a wide variety of excellent gear available from a a wide variety of manufacturers, and just because I review a piece of equipment doesn't mean I endorse it. I have used sub-par equipment from virtually every manufacturer as well and all of my 'reviews' are simply personal experiences and recommendations.

One should read other reviews by far better and more knowledgeable sources than me. However, take each review for what it's worth. At the end of the day, most reviews are incredibly subjective (yes, even some of the scientific tests) and each shooter should make an informed decision on his/her personal needs. I will talk about my experiences with gear that I don't particularly like as well. The following commentary is simply that - my impressions based on my experiences. I hope you find it helpful and informative.

Whether it’s high-speed shooting in ridiculous lighting, trekking through the wilderness on an outdoor portrait shoot or kicking out RAWs in a studio setup, I’ve put the D700 through some early paces, and the results are nothing short of astounding. It’s not in the 20 megapixel range like some of the high end models available now (the new D3X), but it’s still an extraordinary camera and might just be the best “one size fits all camera” for the budding amateur on through the professional arena.

Who exactly is the D700 aimed at? Is it the avid professional who prefers a lighter body or additional bodies without sacrificing the image quality of the D3? What about the advanced amateur who simply can’t afford the D3? Could it be the shooter who wants high ISO performance and a full frame sensor? The answer is simple - all of the above.

In my experience as a photographer I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a camera for every type of shooter. It used to be that the lines dividing models were somewhat more clearly defined, but with the introduction of the D700 those barriers are becoming somewhat faint. This is actually a good thing. Why? Because the blurring of the lines actually magnifies their major differences. I’ll explain this more in a minute.

So, what does the D700 have to offer? Excellent handling, large viewfinder, high-speed shooting, FX (full frame) sensor, incredibly high ISO performance and stellar overall performance. How does it stack up with its closest neighbors, the D300 and the D3, and even the competition? Let’s take a look.

The D700 is very similar in size to the D300. It’s slightly taller and slightly heavier (a little over a third of a pound, but pick it up and you can tell) than the D300, has a new navigation toggle, no memory card door latch and a taller view-finder box, and therefore a larger viewfinder opening. Then there is of course the full frame sensor versus the 1.5x crop of the DX of the D300, and this is the primary reason to move up the ladder. Other than that they are identical. They have the same basic system layout (buttons, screens, etc.) and moving up from the D300 is a cake walk.

What about the D3? The body is shorter because there is no vertical grip/shutter release and the memory card door is located on the side and is not spring loaded. There is also no quick data LED display under the LCD (ISO setting, etc.) nor is there a speaker vent for voice notes. That’s pretty much it. Basically if you took the innards of the D3 and put them in a D300 body, you’d get the D700, well about 95 percent or so.

The great thing is that this blend merges the gap between the $5,000 super pro D3 and $1,700 sanity and size of the D300. It’s right in the middle, well actually closer in features to the D3 and closer in price to the D300 which makes it even more enticing.

Another good thing about the blend is that it does not truly eliminate either of its siblings. For example, the D300 offers the same exact shooting speeds and the DX (1.5x crop) sensor for improved image quality at longer focal lengths. Because the DX sensor makes lenses act one and a half times longer than they actually are the D300 is actually ideal for outdoor sports. Take for instance the working pro’s bread and butter lens, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. This lens works more like a 105-300mm lens on the D300. Both FX bodies use only about 5 megapixels in DX mode, so why not just get the 12 megapixels provided by the D300 instead? Yes, resolution isn’t everything, but if you need to shoot long, just use the D300.

On the other side of the equation is the D3. Why buy a D3 if the D700 has the same sensor and processing power? Build, backup, durability. The D3 is truly a tank with an image sensor in it. It offers excellent weather sealing and dust repelling to boot. The D3 also offers dual memory card slots for extended shooting or in-camera backup and the shutter life is rated at about 300,000 clicks; double that of the D300 and D700. It’s also got a faster burst rate for action shooting.

So, if light, affordable and the DX format are needed? The D300’s for you. Want to venture into the jungle or shoot pics on the front lines in Iraq? Pick the D3. Want the best of both worlds while only giving up on a few features? The D700’s your answer. For a full list of each camera’s features visit www.nikonusa.com.

The following are the key pros and cons that I picked out to discuss. There are many others depending on what level of camera you are currently using.

PROS

Viewfinder: Wow. If you are not already shooting on a D3, 5D or 1Ds, this is a stunner. I used a 5D for a while and when I switched back over to Nikon I went back to the DX sensor and the smaller viewfinder. Why is this important? The image is larger and clearer. The DX sensor is half the size of the FX sensor. Therefore, the mirror is smaller, as is the view finder. Even with magnifying eyepieces, nothing compares to a full frame viewfinder. It makes composition faster and easier and the photographic experience as a whole is better.

LCD cover: This is a little thing, but for someone on the move it’s nice. Most cameras have a plastic LCD cover that protects it from dust and scratches. The one on the D700 seems to fit tighter at the edges making it less susceptible to junk creeping in. Nice.

Shutter: The shutter fires true. Bottom line. The full size mirror and shutter blades click with a sense of identity. It doesn’t have the hollow fire of a DX body. This has nothing to do with actual performance, it just feels confident and I like it.

Focusing: The D700 has the same focusing mechanism as the D3. It’s fast and accurate, even in low light. The 3D tracking feature is pretty cool too, though you’d really have to have some crazy, contrast-y movement to really use it. I use the 51-point AF mode for sports and it’s awesome.

ISO performance: ISO performance is the absolute best I’ve ever seen, period. I’ve used both Nikon and Canon bodies of all kinds and the closest was the Canon 5D (note, the 5D Mark II has just been released and looks promising) and this trumps the 5D in spades. I am very picky about image noise. Some people say it adds character. Good for you, but I like my images as clean as possible. The D300 is exceptionally good at ISO noise control, but it’s nothing like the D700 and that is THE main reason I switched. Indoor sports is one of the worst shooting environments, regarding light, that you can imagine - especially without fast recycling strobes. Think about it: fast, erratic motion and low light. You need high ISO performance and an accurate AF, all of which the D700 has - especially when coupled with good glass. Indoor weddings, where flash is either not permissible or undesirable, is another venue the D700 excels in.

Typically, I would never shoot my D300 higher than ISO 800 and then was only when absolutely necessary. The D700 produces images that are cleaner at ISO 3200-6400 than the D300 does at 800, in my opinion. In fact, this afternoon I was shooting indoor pictures for a promotional pamphlet at ISO 1600! I would never have done that with any other camera. High ISO performance not only comes in handy in low light, but when you want to stop down the aperture for depth of field or use flash without exhausting the batteries. It’s simply stunning.

Here are some images taken with the D700 at higher ISOs:

ISO 1600 @ 1/400th and f/2.8 - Taken in the Coleman Coliseum at the University of Alabama. No strobes. The guy shooting for the Crimson Tide was rock’n White Lightning’s (a pair in each of the catwalk’s four corners). He was juicing enough to get f/5.6 at ISO 400 - lucky him. Of course with the strobes, he was getting maybe 20-30 shots for the game (I think he has to be selective with the flash use there). Because the images are so good at 1600 (better than anything I’ve used even at 800!), I went home with a few hundred usable images. [About the image: Faulkner University played the University of Alabama in an exhibition game on Nov. 6, 2008]

ISO 6400 @ 1/200th and f/2.8 - Two of the volleyball players watching the football team’s final home game of the season. The images at these higher ISOs are incredible and totally usable! If you expect them to look as clean as ISO 200 you’re nuts, but they’re still impressive. Like I said, at 1600 it's better than older 800s. See 100% crop below.

Here is a 100% crop of the above image. Does it show noise? Yup, but it’s super controlled. The most impressive thing is the shadow levels. This is normally where the images go to crud. Not here! Look, if you DO shoot an important subject, handheld at 1/200th of a second at ISO 6400 at f/2.8 and run a 100% crop into 1/10th of the frame and blow it up, you probably need to rethink your photography practices a bit. If you’re shooting UFOs, however, this is of course acceptable. Bottom line: the ISO potential with the D700 is just SICK!

COMPARISON with the D300:

Here are two images of the same sort of action at about the same focal distance and same subject orientation within the frame. There are HUGE differences in light, however. The image on the left was taken at NCAA Division I FCS Samford University’s Seibert Stadium in Birmingham, Ala. It was much better lit than Prattville High School’s Stanely-Jenson Stadium in Prattville, Ala.

The top image is slightly sharper due to better light and a faster shutter speed (1/500th vs. 1/400th), but we’re focusing on image noise. Again, the darker the image, the WORSE the noise levels will appear. Even the out of focus portions of the lower image are cleaner then those of the upper image. Oh, and I forgot to mention, the upper image was shot with the D300 at ISO 1600, the bottom with the D700 at ISO 6400!!! We’re talking FOUR TIMES THE LIGHT SENSITIVITY!!! (This should also tell you how poorly lit the second stadium was since they were shot at nearly identical settings...) Think about how this will help your photography when shooting in lower light or when you simply need better flash performance or increased DOF.

FX Sensor: The FX sensor is excellent. It not only provides very impressive high ISO performance, but also allows for wider wides. Just like the DX allows for longer telephoto work, the FX sensor excels on the wide end. The widest DX lens (non-fisheye) is the 12-24mm f/4. On a DX sensor it is about equivalent to 18mm on the wide end. This is plenty wide, but a full stop slower than is possible with the new 14-24mm f/2.8. With this lens you get 4mm more on the wide end and an extra stop of light. The pixel density is also roomier, allowing for up-converting without major drawbacks. It’s a stunner.

New Menu Features: New menu features allow you to program four different user settings, for rapid transferring from one shooting type to another. For example I have slot “A” set to Weddings and Portrait, “B” to Sports and “C” to Studio. Each custom setting is fine tuned to the needs for that particular venue. Anything, from active AF sensors to flash mode and rate to button programing, can be unique to each shooting environment. To keep it short, I’ll give you one example of differences between settings. In custom setting “A” the Function button on the D700 is programed to suppress the flash (i.e. if I’m shooting with flash and then decide I don’t want the flash to fire for a frame, I can press and hold the function button and it will “tell” the flash not to fire and then I can release it for the next frame and it will. It is WAY faster than turning the flash off and on). Under “C” however, the function button is programed to activate the grid display in the viewfinder (used to align vertical subjects for level photographs).

Virtual Horizon Mode: The D700 and D3 have super cool virtual horizon modes that look like aviation controls. It indicates whether the camera is level both horizontally and vertically. True alignment is indicated by a green line. The D700 also uses the EV meter so you can use the virtual horizon feature “in” the viewfinder, but his is not as efficient to me, nor as cool. If I don’t use the mode on the LCD screen, I use the function in ”C” (Studio) mode to quickly activate the heads-up grid in the viewfinder.

CONS

Cost: Although a bargain for an avid shooter, especially in low light, it is nearly $1,000 more than the D300, which will keep it in the hands of the more demanding shooter or those with room on their VISA. On the flip side, it’s $2,500 or so less than the D3 (even with the grip and all the other stuff needed for 8 fps, it’s still $2,000 cheaper). One does need to consider the lens cost/upgrade, however. (See below)

CF Door: The Compact Flash door is better on both the D300 and the D3. The D3’s card door is excellent. It has a flip lock covering a push button release. The D300 has a spring loaded switch on the back of the camera. The D700 has a simple pull and release door that makes it highly susceptible to coming open in the camera bag. It makes it easier to retrieve a card from a camera in a bag, but I’d forfeit this to have a more secure latch.

Vignetting: Viewfinder and image vignetting with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is very evident. Edge quality is below par and this is something that everyones has issues with. The problems diminish somewhat as you stop the lens down, but I use it wide open quite a bit. Hopefully, Nikon is prepping a newer version of this lens.

Lens upgrades: Costly! If you own any DX lenses, you’ll need to upgrade. You don’t have to, but if you want to shoot DX lenses you should stick with the D300 or D90. Having DX lenses with an FX sensor defeats the purpose. So, you’ll have to list your trusty 17-55mm f/2.8 on eBay and get the new 24-70mm f/2.8 for $1,500. That’s a full $700 more than you’ll get for your 17-55mm if you’re lucky. These new optics are superb and state of the art, but you’ll need to start selling your children to pay for them.

That's my take on what I consider to be an extraordinary camera. Will there be a D700x with the newer high resolution sensor that's in the D3X? Maybe, and it would likely fall in the $4,500-$5,500 range, I would think. That would make it far more affordable for everyone, but we will have to wait and see. If I continue in my current vein, I don't know if I'd really need that resolution and the massive file sizes it brings, but it would be nice. Again, we'll just have to wait and see. For now, I'm loving my D700.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

- R