I don’t really write camera equipment reviews.

There are a number of wonderful sites, bookmarked here, and here, who do that extremely well (I’m particularly impressed with Thom Hogan’s fine analysis, particularly  on today’s topic).  That having been said, I have been, for the past several days, shooting with my new Nikon D7000. I am beginning to form some distinct impressions.

First, the camera certainly has very good resolution. In head to head testing against my D2x, I think I can see a bit more detail from the D7000 files, but only a bit. (12 to 16 MPs of resolution is not really a huge jump).

What is evident is the cleanness of the files, which are more noise-free, even at ISO 100, than even those of the vaunted D2x which was somewhat famous for its clean low ISO images. The  five years between the two  models is a long time in digital imaging technology.

Once the ISO range starts to increase, the gap from old to the new widens very quickly. I shot nice images in my dim neighborhood pub with the D 7000 and a 50mm f1.8 at ISO 3200. In the past, I would only have attempted this with my much more expensive FX format D 700 (which seems to be still perhaps a stop better than the D7000).

The effective dynamic range seems excellent. There is considerable latitude in highlight recovery, not as much as the Fuji, but to me, far more than the D2x, or the Panasonic G- series cameras I often utilize.

The shadows however, offer another opportunity to find dynamic range, and the D7000 does not disappoint. Features of for instance, dark hemlock or pine boughs that I deliberately under exposed to preserve sky detail, reemerge with mid-tone lightening, full of detail, and without significant noise.

I love the form factor. The D2x, with a tripod shoe in place could be a nuisance to wedge into my “walking” camera bag. The Fuji S-5 was smaller (like a Nikon D200-300), and I loved the files, but sometimes you just need more resolution. The D7000 by comparison slips into the bag with ease ( I can even fit an SB 800 flash alongside it in the main pouch), and shoots images with tons of detail.

Some of my favorite lenses are useful again. I specifically think of the nice Nikkors such as the 16-85mm f3.5-5 VR, the 17-35mm f2.8, the 70-200 f2.8 VR (version I),  as well as the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, and the Tokina 12-24mm f4. As Thom Hogan has pointed out in his review; with this sensor you need good glass to get maximum benefit.

Color response is typical Nikon: a little cool when converted in Adobe Camera RAW, particularly when using flash. Skin tones are not optimal ( I’m still spoiled by the Fuji S5’s color). I haven’t tried the provided Nikon software to see whether it mitigates this a bit. Maybe JPGs are better (I rarely shoot them).

No one’s commented on the shutter. One of the real tactile sensations one experiences when using a camera body is the visceral, and audible characteristics of the mirror- shutter release.

The D-7000 has a pro level shutter (good for 150k operations per Nikon) but it sounds and feels different than my other F-mount bodies

First, to me it’s notably quieter. Given this and the camera’s small size, it suggests the d7000’s suitability for street shooting, particularly mounted perhaps with one of the fast 35mm primes available. There’s a quiet mode available, but to me it seems redundant.

The shutter release and associated mechanical events actions have a particularly smooth feel through you finger. It’s a small thing, but definitely contributory to the feeling of refinement one senses in its use. Also, for me, 6 frames a second is more than quick enough.

 I do have a few gripes. First, why didn’t Nikon spend a few extra dollars and replace the amateur type mode dial on the top of the camera, with three-button version of the upper level bodies. They already given us the pro-level drive selector below it.  This might have placated some of the camera body snobs who find this model unworthy of their talents.

Also, I guess we had to have a new battery; but now I have added another charger to the army of them sitting on my file cabinet.

So I’ll definitely keep this camera. I need to work on profiling it to improve the color output, otherwise I am very pleased.

 I think you’ll see a lot of images from this Nikon on these pages in the next several years.

I hope that they will be enjoyable.

If they’re not, It won’t be the camera’s fault.

Sometimes, there’s nothing to be said.

]

Yesterday, the UPS truck stopped off at my office and dropped off an early Christmas present: the Nikon D 7000 I had ordered from B+H.

It arrived a week earlier than Henry Posner suggested it would.   I do suspect that Henry was conservative with his delivery date estimate, and I’m grateful for the pleasant surprise.

Next task is to do some informal testing of the body to find out:

#1 Is the   D7000 all it’s cracked up to be and a replacement for another camera “in the fleet”

#2 Is my particular sample a good one to keep.

If the answer is “yes” to both, I’ll open the printer and send on the rebate.

So far, some early observations.

The body is very robustly built, far more like a junior version of for instance, my D-700.

Six frames per second is very fast, more than I’ll ever need.

So far the best white balance of any F-mount camera I’ve ever used.

I will, as I always do, shoot and evaluate.

More to come.

Merry Christmas!

 

Certainly one of the most beautiful, and unique compositions of the traditional Christmas songbook is the lovely: Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas, penned by songwriting team Hugh Martin and Ralph Blaine (though Blaine’s actual contributions to this particular song are in doubt).

The song was written for the MGM musical Meet me in St Louis which was an adaptation of a Broadway musical of the same name.

The interesting history of the song is worth reviewing. In the movie, the song is sung by older sister Esther (Judy Garland), to younger sister Tootie (Margaret O’Brien). It is offered in an effort to cheer the five-year-old, who is positively despondent at the prospects of moving from their home in St Louis, where they are extremely well established, to New York City.

The first version offered to movie’s producers was to say the least, rather dark:

Have yourself a merry little Christmas, it may be your last,
Next year we may all be living in the past
Have yourself a merry little Christmas, pop that champagne cork,
Next year we will all be living in New York.

No good times like the olden days, happy golden days of yore,
Faithful friends who were dear to us, will be near to us no more.

But at least we all will be together, if the Lord allows,
From now on we’ll have to muddle through somehow.
So have yourself a merry little Christmas now.^[5]

As the tale is told, many of those involved with the movie including Ms. Garland herself balked at using these less-than-cheery lyrics. Reluctantly, Hugh Martin reworked the lyrics to the version Ms. Garland eventually sang in the 1944 release.

 Released as a single, the song understandably became a sentimental favorite among troops overseas. Still the song failed to achieve the success and notoriety of the movie’s big hit: The Trolley Song.

The song was not exactly forgotten afterwards but a glance at the list of those who recorded it shows that between 1944 and the early 1960’s there was a decided lack of interest among singers for Martin’s tune.

One person who was interested was Frank Sinatra. He first recorded the” Garland” lyric in 1947 on Columbia Records.

In 1957 contemplating song choices for his album, A Jolly Christmas, Frank, now with Capitol records, is said to have decided that the song was still too dark. He asked Hugh Martin, who must have been weary of this, to rewrite it again. The composer again complied, among other things, purging the song of the “muddle through”  line, substituting the  “Hang a shining star above the highest bow” lyric that most of us, I think, sing today.

A Jolly Christmas was rereleased in 1963 as The Sinatra Christmas Album, with the song intact. You’ve all heard it; it’s the one everyone plays. Personally, I don’t like this version nearly as much as the 1947 version, which is beautifully sung, much less syrupy, and most important,lacks the annoying background singers. You can find it here, but I’m not posting it.

Here’s the 1947 version:

Another glance at the recording history shows that, starting in the early sixties, singers interest in the song began to increase: on the strength of the latest”Sinatra” lyrics it became the Christmas standard it is today.

In article from the San Diego Union-Tribune dated 12/14/10, the 96-year-old writer has apparently gotten over whatever writer’s regret he felt about the multiple edits. He describes the success of the song as: “out of this world exciting.”

Now, here’s Judy Garland and little Margaret O’Brien. As a physician, I am concerned that little “Tootie”, is seriously depressed:

(It won’t embed, so click in the middle)

As if this weren’t enough, Martin, who worked later in life as an accompanist for Christian ministries, wrote an entirely new set of lyrics entitled: Have Yourself a Blessed little Christmas.

It is lovely song, but in the long run, among all the iterations, I prefer the “movie” version which has the right mix of pathos and hopefulness.

At any rate, gotta go, still gotta shop.

To all of my faithful readers… do what the song says, and have a happy New Year as well.

P.S. The printer’s still here, as yet unopened.

 

 

 

When I posted “A Rebate Tale”,  I was concerned that the topic would be:

#1 Too dull.

#2 To seemingly selfish.

I did actually post the story to be a warning so that could avoid the modestly annoying situation I find my self in.

I was unprepared for the response that this post has received.

I did post a link to several photography forums that I am known to frequent.

I  subsequently had the single day record for the largest number of visitors to the blog .

And the robust readership continues several days later.

The responses which occurred in the forums were varied. Some people ridiculed me for not being careful enough and failing to fully understand the terms of the rebate.

Others told me of their similar predicament regarding the Nikon D-7000, and the Epson rebate.

Still others mocked me, for moving from pro-level Nikon bodies to what some see is an “advanced amateur” body (I continue to believe that a “pro” camera is any camera you can make money with).

Most interestingly, there was a theme among some posters that the whole issue of product rebates should be viewed with suspicion, if not outright distrust as many rebates legitimaty applied for, are never realized by the consumer.

I had a fascinating post on the site from Helen Oster who is the “Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador”. She works for a (the biggest?) competitor to B+H Photo, where I purchased the merchandise in question. She suggested that I contact Henry Posner, who is her opposite number at B+H. What a classy thing to do.

Henry was waiting for me. He already knew who I was and understood my predicament. Apparently he has the ability to scan the web for mentions of his employer and to intervene when necessary to protect the fine reputation B+H enjoys. And he found my little blog from two mentions in text, of his store. It’s a little scary.

We had an extremely pleasant conversation. He offered to check with his camera buyer to get read on when I might see the Nikon delivered (two weeks, as it turned out). He also extended he window when I may return the printer. He explained that the rebate business has been at times a problem, as companies like Epson often use outside contractors to process their rebate applications. The quality (and motivation) of those contractors affects how many rebates are issued (my summation, not Henry’s exact words).

I also talked the person in charge of rebate issues at Epson. She told me that all that needed was the invoice from B+H with the Camera and the printer shown as purchased. She reminded me that Epson has no way to track other manufacturers serial numbers, or UPC codes anyway.

I don’t trust this. Apparently the “contractors” processing claims tend to be stringent about applications or they kick them out. I also know that having the physical UPC code cut from the box prevents multiple rebates on the same purchase. I’m not going to bite on this one.

If I do get to apply for that refund, the application will be letter-perfect, with all the requirements met. It will be sent certified mail, return receipt requested.

Meanwhile, but the box is still sitting here. It’s getting a bit dusty now, but remains otherwise untouched.

Unlike me this year, it may be taking a trip back to NYC for the holidays.

 

The Box (Nikon D700, Nikkor 50mm f1.8)

 

I’m sitting in my photography office.  I’m staring at a box which contains some brand spanking new photo gear. But I can’t open it. It sits on my floor almost taunting me.

 “Open me” it seems to taunt me, lounging provocatively in front of my couch. “You know you want me”, it seems to say, its sleek, seductive, cardboard flanks emblazoned with phrases such as: “A new standard in vivid uniform glossy prints”, or “dramatically improved facial tones”.

 But, I can’t open, it no matter how tempting it seems. I have to wait. Wait until the big brown truck stops once again at my door with another package.  

It will be my brand new Nikon D7000.

 I’m in an unusual and slightly frustrating situation. I’ve been following the reviews of this new Nikon, a new mid level DSLR with excellent specs that even rival more pro level offerings from Nikon. The D7000 is smaller than other most other Nikons yet of metal construction and yet fully weather-sealed. It has 16 Mp of resolution, and surprisingly good low light capability for a high resolution DX (smaller) sized sensor. In other words, it is an ideal photographic tool for use while hiking or skiing. It so far well reviewed.

And, because of all of this, it’s very hard to obtain one.

I was going to hold out while demand died down (my usual strategy in these situations), until I became aware of a deal offered by Epson, maker of my favored line of photo printers. Turns out that who with the purchase of certain new printers along with new DSLR, Epson will rebate to the buyer, $450 dollars.

Now I have two photo printers in my studio, an Epson Stylus Photo 3800, an A2 sized (17”inch carriage)  pro level printer, and smaller, 13” carriage, Epson R 1800. The latter, is very versatile, and particularly adept at printing on gloss paper. Both printers use pigmented archival inks and suitable for printing gallery prints.

  The Epson R 1900, the replacement model for my smaller printer is one of the printers feature in the rebate. It is said to be even better, particularly suited to printing skin tones.  It sells for around $500

So buy a camera, get a excellent photo printer for fifty bucks?  I wasn’t really in desperate for a new printer, as the R1800 works well, but for the money, it’s a no brainer. I put my order in through B+H Photo in NYC a week ago. I did call them to confirm that the rebate would not be affected by the availability of the camera. They confirmed it.

In usual B+H style, a large a box arrives in my office the next day. It’s the printer of course. The Nikon is backordered, delivery date unclear.

So I print up the rebate coupon from the Epson website. The purchase deadline for the rebate is December 31, which I’ve already met. There are two other wrinkles:

One, the other deadline is thirty days from the date of the order. Not a big deal.

The other though is a problem. I need a serial number, and UPC code from the camera. The one that’s really hard to get.

Uh oh, B+H was wrong. I should have called Epson.

So now I sit with a large box in my studio. I can’t open it as it wouldn’t be as returnable (no reason to jerk the retailer around). If it gets to 28 days or so without receiving the camera, I’ll have to wrap it up and send it back (or pay $500 for a printer I don’t need).

I tell this tale not to elicit your sympathy (though I’ll take it if offered). I tell it to remind the dear reader, and fellow buyer of electronic and photo gear, to make sure you know the actual terms of rebates offered, especially when the money back offer is the difference between buy, and no buy decision.

So, for now, I wait.

  Addendum:

 Today the UPS truck delivered the extra battery for the D 7000, but still no camera itself.

 They’re obviously teasing me.

This is a crop (forced by the site format, as have been all the header images) of an image called “View Southwest”, an imaged featured in the 2010 John Heinz Calender (2011 version available below)

It was taken on a day in late November when a rather localized ice storm struck a portion of the ridgetops in our region (but happily not the next one over, where I reside).

The effect was so striking, that I could not resist hiking to the top of the highest ridge involved and shooting until the sun fell. The views, particularly as the sun fell from the sky, were spectacular.

One of the many images shot that evening “Ice Storm on Penobscot” is featured in the 1st of the two “Bleak Times” article that precede this.

Hopefully, it will prompt you to visit this site more often (and maybe even to buy more calendars which as you may recall, benefit pediatric rehabilitation programs)

 

 

How little we know,

How much to discover

What chemical forces flow

From lover to lover…

Even in the Seventies, when my LP and eight-track tape collection included artists like Neil Young, Elton John, Billy Joel, Emerson Lake and Palmer, and the Doobie Brothers, I always had a soft spot for Frank Sinatra.

I’ve featured his music elsewhere on the site. And I suspect I’ll be featuring it in the future.

Most of my Sinatra recordings are on LP’s.  As a birthday present probably 25 years ago, my wife Cathy presented me with the complete collection of Frank’s Capital recordings, which span the years between 1954, and 1961. Compared to the Columbia label recordings (which I have on CDs) which preceded them, they represent a newly energized and confident Frank, fresh from his Oscar (and Golden Globe) winning performance in From Here to Eternity.

 I maintain among my audio gear, an excellent turntable, tonearm, and cartridge. Listening to these recordings through good electronics and speakers, the ease with which he sings, and the sheer presence of the recordings is absolutely riveting, superior in some ways to their CD versions (and certainly better than their MP3s). I don’t listen to them often, in part to preserve this rare vinyl, and in part because as it’s easier to slip in a CD or turn on my iPod. Because of this, some of the performances have slipped out of my consciousness.

I regret this.

 Among those recordings is this wonderful little composition that I recently re-encountered on You Tube in several different forms.

How Little We Know (How Much To Discover) is a relatively modest song. The lyrics in particular, impress, cleverly scribed by Carolyn Leigh, lyricist for classics such as Young at Heart, and Witchcraft.  The deftness of the writing approaches that of composers like Cole Porter or Lorenz Hart.

 The melody was composed by Phil Springer, author of hits such as the classic, Santa Baby, made famous by Eartha Kitt.

 I offer two versions. Both feature the classic chart as arranged by bandleader Nelson Riddle, one of Sinatra’s frequent collaborators. The first is the studio recording from Frank’s 1958 LP titled: This is Sinatra. The performance is classy, beautifully phrased, near perfectly sung. It’s the version I know best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yE2gXIosp4&feature=player_detailpage

The second performance is from a later TV special. I encountered this more recenntly.

 It’s likely from the sixties when traditional singers were struggling to remain relevant in the face of new performers such as the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and even contrived acts such as the Monkees. This probably explains the Nehru jacket and the beads, which look kind of sad on this iconic performer. Nonetheless, whether he realized it or not, at the time, in some ways he was at the peak of his vocal life, and his performance, though brief, demonstrates an utter mastery of the song.  To me is much more evocative than the earlier recording.

4/5/12  I apologize, this recording has been scoured from the internet.

If you can find it, it’s wonderful.

In this day and age, Frank’s legacy is carried on by such performers as Michael Buble and Michael Feinstein, both who have very polished voices, and are great entertainers. Neither for me conveys the sense of robust masculinity that Sinatra brought to his music. Harry Connick is a little closer, but not quite there yet.

In the meantime I have only to slip the record from the dust jacket, set it in the turntable and gently drop the needle into the lead in groove in the vinyl, and it is 1958 again.

As the music plays, I look across the room at my beautiful wife, who is busily putting the Thanksgiving decorations away.  At that moment I think how perfectly these lyrics convey the feelings of lovers around the world:

             As long as you kiss me, and the world around us shatters

                                                How little it matters

                                                 How little we know…