This is what I hope to be the start of a new series of logs.. one that I have done and stopped years ago. Friends would remember what they get when they finger me. :-) I hope to update this on a monthly basis, at the least -- I don't want to be too ambitious. Feel free to email me at [email protected] to give me your comments.
You can find my earlier ramblings here:
Ramblings-2002-07
I just read a review of the Nikon Coolpix 5700 on Luminious Landscape. Well, some things you will never find out without reading a good review.
One thing the reviewer, Michael Reichmann -- also the webmaster, pointed out is the camera's painfully slow cycle time. Like him, I definitely prefer RAW. Why shoot at such high resolution and then throw most of the advantage away? But, Coolpix 5700 takes 5 seconds before the camera is ready to take the next shot. And if you think this is bad, brace yourself: when you fill the buffer of 3 images, it takes up to a minute to resume, because it takes 20 seconds to write one image to the flash disk.
While digital has been touted as shoot as much as you like, it is not true for action shots. Better have a new slogan: "shoot 3 and rest for a minute". You cannot be trigger happy, because if you are, you might be out of action for quite a while.
I can't believe it. On two occasions when the 135/2 lens would be the most useful, I don't have it with me! What's more, I made a delibrate decision to leave it behind! Argh! Murphy's Law -- I knew it!
First, I went to Holiday Plaza on a Saturday. There is a good chance of a fashion show. But of course there is also a good chance of not having a fashion show. So I decided to leave the lens behind. Guess what? There is a fashion show. Now, this is still not so bad -- usually the models are not so pretty. I usually look for pretty faces in the crowd. And this time, among the crowd, I saw a very pretty gal. Past her teenage prime. But I can imagine she must have been some sort of beauty queen in her teens. She is very elegant. Well, I am way past my teenage prime too, so she is very attractive to me. Oh, where is the 135/2 lens when I need it?
Second, today I came back to my home in Johor Bahru and heard the ge-tai. Now, it is an annual tradition to host such a ge-tai near my house every year. I didn't have my camera with me last year, but I told myself I would get ready this year. Among the preparation is a 135/2 lens.. I have actually forgotten about it.. until the loud music shoke the promise out of me. Well, I've got the lens. And of course I didn't bring it back with me. I brought it back last week and thought I have already run out of subjects to shoot, so this week I brought back the 35/2 lens. *sigh* What poor timing.
Well, I can still go to Singapore to grab my 135/2 lens, since it is a 3-day event. However, I doubt I would do so. I have problems using the 35/2 lens. Hard to focus. Hard to get near -- what loud music! My ears are still ringing as I write this. And low exposure: f/2.8 1/30 on ISO 400. Actually, this is my best estimate. The meter is way off, fooled by the low and uneven lighting, of course. I want to see if I got the exposure and focus right. Ignoring the fact that the whole stage is small due to the wide angle lens, I worry that I misfocused. And if I did manage to focus correctly, I worry about camera shake and subject movement. Yes, they were dancing and moving very quickly. The light wasn't very flattering as well. On the occasions where the light shone on their front, which is basically the time I can shoot, the light is green. Of all colors, why does it have to be green? Well, lots of if's and lots of unknowns. A good experiment.
Actually, I am lucky that I decided to bring back my FE2. Hmm, I must make it a practice to bring it back whenever possible.
The FE2 is less useful in low light because it does not support half-stop shutter speeds. I finally found one limitation.
My goal in photography is not to take the ultimate best photo, although that would be nice. One of my goals is to depend on the least amount of crutch and automation, and still get the shot. Fixed focal length lenses are not so hard to use. AF can be easily dispensed away with -- if you have the right combination of camera and lens. Be sure to have a camera with a big and bright viewfinder, and a fast lens (f/2.8 at least; no, f/3.5 will not do ;-). Using full manual mode instead of the other metering assisted modes may be one hard step, but you'll get used to it.
What's left? The most basic feature of all -- and the final step towards achieving my goal -- relying on the exposure meter. Surely I must be joking? No, and a few rules of thumb make it simple to use.
Actually, I have disregarded the exposure meter for quite some time already. Even on my Dynax 7, I sometimes meter inconsistently, am complacent about the metering, or decide to override the meter without much conscious thought. Over time, I realised that most light only fall into several zones.
I can remember all these because of the simplifications I took. I use ISO 400 film most of the time. And I stick to certain favourite apertures. So I only need to remember one thing, the shutter speed. Over time, you will notice the same shutter speed is used again and again. :-)
There are a few simple ones. Indoors, I often start with f/4 1/30. This is just nice for a 28mm lens -- it can be used confidently. Sometimes I use f/4.5 1/45, but the shadows start to go. If the lighting is not very good, I may go even lower, like f/2.8 1/20. But this usually means a flash is necessary. To go lower to 1/15 is extremely risky, and subject movement is always a problem. If I need to shoot just one subject, my favourite combination is the 100mm lens at f/2 1/60. This has never failed me.
When I am not trying to be discreet, I seldom shoot indoors without flash. With flash, the setting does not really matter -- TTL flash will expose the foreground correctly. The exposure used with determine the ambient lighting. I tend towards lower shutter speed, but my limit is 1/30, which I frequently use. Once I reach it, I prefer to open up the aperture up to f/2.8. As a result, my shots are prone to subject movement, camera shake and shallow DOF! But I like it. :-) The scene looks as I recall it. No flash falloff and no obvious flash usage (when I used it correctly, which is not always).
If there is very little light, I use my ultimate handheld exposure -- f/2 1/15 or f/1.4 1/30, depending on thhe lens. Definitely not to be used all the time, but it can get you some shots other photographers have no way to duplicate.
Another simple case is the sunny-16 rule. I'm sure you have heard of this one. On a cloudless sunny day, the correct exposure is f/16 1/film speed. This is only a guide, but you should try it. I seldom shoot on cloudless sunny days, but it seemed to me this tends towards overexposure. I often get 1/1000 and above even if I just meter on the landscape (no sky).
When it is sunny, shadows are usually very harsh, and eyes squint. Always use fill flash. I prefer to use as high a shutter speed as possible, limited only by my flash sync. This means 1/200. I don't want to go HSS (High Speed Sync) due to its much reduced range. In this case, I will choose from f/5.6 to f/11.
How about cloudy days? I often start with f/5.6, and get 1/125 to 1/500. Dark clouds can be much darker, at f/3.5 1/125.
In shadows, as soon as I walked into one, I open up one or two stops first. The brighter the sun, the more I open up. This will blow the background that is still directly lighted by the sun. Another option is to use flash. I usually meter before I decide to open up more than two stops.
When taking photos indoors in bright daytime, and the indoor is naturally lit, the exposure can range from f/3.5 1/125 to f/3.5 1/500. It tends towards the latter if it is illuminated through the ceiling. It can be lower, especially for window lighting, and it can be uneven as well.
I seldom take photos in the morning -- after all, I concentrate on getting to work ;-). This is one instance where I still meters a lot.
I'm quite poor in the evening too. The reason is because I often choose using my compact camera -- my trusty Olympus mju II 35mm f/2.8 -- at this time, and I have no control over its settings. When the sun is blocked, I would start off with f/3.5 1/60. If there is direct sun, I would use 1/125 and meter to confirm.
In the late evening, during the magic half-hour, it really calls for a tripod. However, it is possible to get good shots at extreme apertures and shutter speeds, like f/2.8 1/30. There is no need to meter -- the vast area of darkness will fool the meter anyway. If you use a tripod, then almost any exposure will do. Just set f/5.6 to f/11 and use shutter speeds from 1" to 16", depending on the light (and direction!). And bracket, of course. I like to start with f/5.6 1" when the light just starts to fall, and f/5.6 8" at the end, when the sky is very dark blue. It's a long time since I used a tripod for this, though.
I am very biased towards overexposure, because I use negative film. Some of my exposures are way off, but they still print very well. Negatives do not stand underexposure well. The prints start to lose their colors and become grainy with just one stop underexposure.
Ah, how I wished I have the FM2 or FM3a that are still fully functional without the battery. To me, this is the only advantage of the FM3a over my FE2.
Now, estimating exposure doesn't seem so hard, does it? :-)
From a result point of view, the lens is the primary contribution. Film and processing matters, but not as much. For digital cameras, the CCD plays a major part. Viewing from this angle, the camera is reduced to a lightbox. It has no effect on the result. (AF accuracy and speed aside.) This might sound surprising, but as long as you are able to set the aperture and shutter speed manually, you can get the same result regardless of the camera.
If you come from a compact camera background, the camera quality equals to the lens quality, because the lens is not detachable. When you graduate to a interchangable lens system, a common mistake is to continue to think this way. If you think a 28-80G kit lens will give better result on a higher end body, think again.
However, how do you judge a lens? Most lens review focus on one primary aspect: the sharpness. And the most objective way is to use the MTF graph. However, it can be very misleading. And it certainly is not everything. Here is what I think.
Sharpness. Most people judge sharpness by the MTF graph, or sometimes, just a weighted score. The score is meaningless. The values are taken from center to edge, several apertures, and for zooms, different focal lengths. The weights will be different from yours. Do you prefer high center sharpness or even edge-to-edge sharpness? Do you prefer wide aperture or f/8? Which focal length do you use most often, the wide end or the long end?
Most MTF-based scores give higher weightage to center, f/8 aperture, and the wide end of the zoom. This is merely one aspect of the lens. What if you deviate? Therefore, always look at the individual graphs.
Now, many people advocate third-party lenses based on MTF values, and this irritates me a lot. I concede that a third-party lens can be sharp, but only because they are optimised for such testing. I suspect they compromise in other areas that are not tested.
In any case, most people, including me, confuse sharpness with contrast. See below.
Contrast. Two kind of contrast exist in a photo. One is the global contast. It determines the range of tonality of the image. A contrasty lens will render subtle changes in shades better. This may not be immediately apparent, but a side-by-side comparison will show the difference. It shows up on flat subjects (color wise) or flat lighting.
The other contrast is local contrast. If you ever use the edges to determine sharpness, you are really looking at local contrast, not sharpness. Thus, a lens with high local contrast will look sharp.
Now, if this is local contrast, then how do you judge sharpness? Sharpness determines details. A sharper lens will resolve more details. This may not be apparent until you magnify the image, or do a side-by-side comparison. Hairs and foilage are highly detailed, thus they are good places to judge sharpness. A poor lens will be unable to resolve them and show them as one blob.
Distortion. Always under appreciated until you need to shoot straight lines.
Color. I have nothing much to say about this because I don't shoot slides. If you change lenses often, it might be important that all of them have the same color rendition. If not, a slide show will look weird.
Flat-field. Field curvature is the cause of poor MTF performance for wide aperture lenses. In my f/1.4 shots, I got acceptable results at the edges. The MTF graph says it should be much worse. This is one reason why MTF graphs are useless for wide apertures.
Flare. Flare will result in lower global contrast. It may happen more often than you think, since not all flare result in the tell-tale flare look.
Bokeh. Very important if you shoot at wide apertures. The background may be out of focus, but if not properly rendered, they can be very ugly and distracting. In my opinion, this is one area where third party lenses lose out. Their bokeh is often ugly.
Over the years, I have built up a collection of books, DVDs, anime, manga and camera system. However, I cannot use them all at the same time. Therefore, I thought about setting up a personal library, where I will allow people to borrow my stuff.
Logistics is a problem, because most of my stuff is in Malaysia. But I believe that if you want to borrow my stuff, you will find a way to come to my house. :-)
First, I will need to create a catalogue. This is a very daunting task. However, a journey of a thousand miles begin with a step. Thus, I am (slowly) embarking on this task. I haven't settled on the format and presentation style. I want the catalogue to be on the web, so one of the output will be HTML. However, I wonder if I should write it directly in HTML, or generate it from another data format.
For books, I doubt I will complete the catalogue in one go. I will most probably start with a few books I like, write short reviews, and experiment with the presentation.
DVD is merely a storage medium for movies. For the time being, I will only have a list. I hope to add short reviews in time. Since most of my anime are on DVD, it will follow the DVD format. I hope to have short reviews too. Manga, I think I will just list the titles, collection status (not all are completed), and rating.
Camera system is small (but expensive). It is hard to review, though. Camera usage can be found on the web easily. I do not wish to duplicate it. Lens review is too subjective -- of course my lenses are superb. :-) And I have no objective way to do a lens review.
The NDP 2002, on 9th Aug 2002, offers me yet another chance to shoot fireworks. If you have the right camera, fireworks is amazingly easy to shoot. Just set your aperture to f/8 or f/11 and shoot for 3 to 8 seconds at a time.
This year, I am not entirely satisfied with my shots. I shot in the vertical format, and wasted almost 30% of the space on top. I thought the fireworks would go much higher -- that was my mistake the past two years. However, I am much further this time. In the past, I had to use 28mm. This year, a 50mm in the vertical format feels like a 28mm! Not having a zoom, it is difficult for me to adjust on-the-fly. The NDP fireworks is fast and fury. You sure don't want to waste time fiddling during the action. (Having said that, due to a mistake in my camera setting last year, my film rewinded in the midst last year!)
Also, this year I used f/11 instead of the usual f/8. My first year I used f/5.6! However, I opened much shorter then, which led to truncated fireworks. The colors were quite desaturated, much to my disappointment. If you browse around my website, you will find the photos I have taken. See for yourself.
Perhaps by themselves you don't see anything wrong. However, if you surf the local forums, you will see much better fireworks photos. Also, a friend of mine who uses the Nikkor 28-80G lens -- the worst of the Nikkor lenses -- gives such stunning colors on the Fuji Sensia II 400. Not to mention he got a variety of shots. They are far better than what I took. However, after scanning them and running them through an automated processing, the colors are lost.
Every photographer will eventually buy a second lens, even if his first lens is a all-in-one Superzoom 28-300 lens. Or perhaps I should say, especially.
For me, I use mainly single focal length lenses. They are often called prime lenses, but actually, all lenses are prime lenses, even zoom ones. For my Minolta system, I use the 28/2, 50/1.4 and 100/2 lenses as my main system. I have the 70-210/4 lens, but I seldom use it. Recently, I have added the 135/2.8 lens to my arsenal.
This should look very strange to you. Why prime lenses? It's a personal preference, and I found that prime lenses are not difficult to use after all. Give them a chance.
When I got the FE2, I have to build up a new lens system, because Minolta and Nikon have incompatible lens mounts. Of course I go for prime lenses again. But what?
One of Nikon's selling point is their lens compatibility. You can use their lenses from way back from 1960s. Of course, you shouldn't try until you are more familiar with their lenses. This is because there are incompatibilities.
Also, new Nikon lenses will work perfectly on old camera bodies, but older lenses often do not work perfectly on newer bodies. On the low to mid end range cameras, the metering will not work. This means the lens is virtually worthless. Do you know anyone who can estimate exposure well -- without a meter? Or someone with a handdheld meter?
In any case, I got a Manual Focus camera, so I am able to select from Nikon's vast selection of lenses, as long as they are not non-AI (pre 1977).
Since my Minolta uses a 28-50-100 lens lineup, I thought I try something different for Nikon. I like the 35 mm focal length, but I can never justify the Minolta AF 35/2 lens. For one, I already have a compact camera at this focal length. Second, it is too close to both 28 mm and 50 mm, making it hard to pair. I lust for the Minolta AF 35/1.4 lens, but I am waiting for the 'D' version.
One of my objectives of a lens lineup is that they should be fast. Fast refers to the aperture. I always wanted f/2 and wider. A complete affordable lens lineup from 24 to 400 mm are: 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.7, 85/2, 100/2, 135/2, 200/2.8, 300/4 and 400/4.5.
Usually people skip every other step. This is because they are too close. I believe the most common lens lineup are, 28-50-100 and 24-35-85-135. However, I believe 24-50-100 is also doable. There are other combinations, but they are not as common.
For my first Nikkor lens, I had a choice of a 24/2, 28/2 and 35/2 lens. I did not consider the 50/1.8 lens because the field of view is too narrow. I definitely prefer a 35mm lens to a 50mm lens, if used alone. A 50mm lens is virtually useless indoors. A 35mm lens is a good compromise.
A 28mm lens is not so desirable to me because I already have a Minolta AF 28/2 lens. The idea is to expand my lens lineup, not duplicate it. Thus, the battle is between the 24/2 and the 35/2 lenses. I believe I will find the 24mm focal length hard to use, despite not using it before. The 24mm field of view is often so wide that it includes a lot of empty space. Also, it is more prone to wide-angle distortion and has visible coma. I seldom come across the need for such wide angle. A 28mm is good enough for me most of the time.
Having said that, I thought I would give a 24mm lens a chance, if it is an f/2 lens. Minolta, as well as many other manufacturers, only have a f/2.8 version. Canon makes a EF 24/1.4L lens, but it is big. In contrast, the Nikkor 24/2 AIS only uses a 52mm filter.
Ultimately, I got a AF 35/2D lens. Recently, I got the 135/2 AIS lens. Therefore, I am more-or-less committed to the 24-35-85-135 lens lineup.
I have two major decisions to make.
1. Should I buy AF (or AF-D) lenses?
2. Which version of the lenses should I buy?
Should I buy AF (or AF-D) lenses?
Buying AF lenses is wasted for now. However, they can be used on AF cameras, which I may buy, however unlikely now. Currently, no Nikon AF camera impress me. The F100 and F5 are too big, heavy and expensive. I quite like the F80, but it doesn't like MF lenses. I definitely prefer my Dynax 7 where camera handling is concerned.
Which version of the lenses should I buy?
I definitely prefer AIS lenses (post 1982). There is no difficulty for 24/2 and 135/2 lenses. I will buy the AIS lenses. I won't consider f/2.8 versions, and there are no AF equivalents. For the 135mm lens, I keep thinking I should have paid S$1080 for a AF 135/2D DC lens (secondhand) instead of S$870 (with servicing) for the 135/2 AIS lens.
The 85mm lens is a problem. There are three candidates: the 85/1.4 AIS, 85/2 AIS, and the AF 85/1.8D. Also, should I consider the 100mm focal length, there are the 105/1.8 AIS and the 105/2.5 AIS lenses. All are difficult decisions to make. The simplest solution is to buy all the lenses. Unfortunately, this merely delays the problem. What lens to bring out during a shoot? :-)
A sidenote. Surely you heard the argument about how a 20-35/2.8 zoom lens subsitutes for a collection of 20, 24, 28, 35 mm lenses. Personally, I doubt many prime lens shooter actually bring all 4 out at the same time. Most, including me, will bring at most 2. Most will choose 20-28, or 24-35. Of course there are other combinations.
One of my criteria for the Nikkor lens lineup is size. As such, I prefer the 85/2 lens. I don't understand why the AF 85/1.8D has a 62mm filter thread. As for the 105mm lenses, I don't know if I will find the 105/2.5 too slow. However, it has a stellar reputation and I can't wait to see how it performs.
What will it be? Well, I've got to find the lens first!
I hate buying secondhand stuff. However, there are times when it is inevitable, because the stuff is no longer produced. Recently I bought the Nikon FE2 and even more recently, on my birthday, the Nikkor 135/2 AIS lens. The FE2 is quite mint, but is it worth S$580? Did I bargain? No. Mistake. Why is it that when I wanted to buy it, no one else sells it, and now I see it everywhere, from shops to forums to classads to online auctions? The price range from S$400 to S$550. The condition can be better than mine. I must have set a record for buying the most expensive FE2 (in that condition). :-)
As for the 135/2 lens, I got it at S$780, after a discount of S$50. To tell the truth, I bought it on impulse and have absolutely no idea how much it actually cost, first hand or otherwise. I have always wanted a 135/2 lens -- I am a speed fanatic. Speed here refers to the lens aperture. It was my birthday afterall. A fitting present for myself. If only it worked just right. *sigh*
The problem is the aperture ring. The aperture ring does not click very well. So, I brought it to the Nikon Service Center. They quoted S$95 for the servicing. S$95! *Whistle* I didn't know it is so expensive! In future I will be sure to use any required servicing as a bargaining chip.
When I bought the lens, I didn't even know how to differentiate between non-AI, AI and AIS lenses! As such, I didn't know which lens it is! I sure am relieved that I got the AIS version.
I hope I have learnt my lesson after these two hard lessons. I reckon I spent an extra S$150 due to non-bargaining. I will have a lot of chance -- I will be buying more secondhand stuff,, when they turn up. :-)
As speaking of secondhand stuff, I used to have a long-time policy about not selling. However, I am going to implement a new policy of selling unwanted inventory. :-) For a start, I am going to sell away all my unused filters and perhaps a few lenses.
Personal Film scanners are expensive. Therefore, the thought of defraying its cost come to my mind. But the question is, is it feasible and how much to charge?
1. Logistics. I prefer to keep the film scanner with me, so lending the unit out is out of the question. This means I have to meet up with the person to get the film, go back to scan, save in CDR, then meet up with him again. Turnaround time is long. I can save time by sending him the digital files over the net, but this requires both of us to have broadband access.
2. Time. Personal film scanners are not optimised for batch scanning. Most can do a strip of 5 slides or 6 negatives. Some even require you to manual feed for every image! These are out of consideration. Only the highend have a slide film feeder, and only one, the LS-4000, has a negative film roller. However, it requires an uncut roll.
3. Options. To simplify operations, only raw scans are offered. No processing of any kind. This rules out using the built-in scanner software. Vuescan works very well here. But it offers limited ICE and GEM capabilities.
4. Charging. Charge is based on both time and potential usage. The longer it takes to scan, the more it will be charged. A full-res scan is longer than a half-res scan. A multi-pass scan is much longer than a full-res scan. Also, a high-res scan can be used in more ways. Half-res scans are still pretty good. Quarter-res scans (lower than 1000 dpi) have pretty limited use, but the scan time is not much shorter. 16-bit is potentially better than 8-bit, if much post-processing is to be done.
5. Output. Simple. Always TIFF. A value added option is to resize it to several resolutions for convenience. JPEG output needs Auto-Levels, a quality setting, USM parameters. This allows easy preview.
6. Feedback. What if the client isn't satisified with the quality? How to compensate? Rescan? Refund? I am not talking about accidents here. I am assuming the original film are not mishandled or lost.
A few of the steps can be automated. But those that cannot, the meeting up and the film loading, makes the venture infeasible. Film scanning is slow and has much overhead. To charge according to the time spent makes the charges too high. This makes it a premium service, but the scanned quality may not be good enough to warrant that kind of pricing.
Due to the physical handling characteristic, for negatives, the loading time is long, but the rest of the strip can be scanned easily. Should this be reflected in the pricing?
Currently, I am thinking of using a point system. More time means more points. Better options means more points. Manual processing means more points. And more points means more money. :-)