Once again as the holidays approach, it’s my pleasure to announce the new for 2013 Allied Rehab/John Heinz calendar,  published each year to benefit the pediatric programs at those institutions. 

Once again and is my privilege to provide the landscape photography, which depicts places and seasons from throughout the Allied Rehab service area in Northeastern Pennsylvania.

The system’s pediatric programs provide services to children, starting in the very early age, and often extending until they reach their teens.  They provide assistance to children with a variety of conditions.  Though medical insurance is accepted by the program, those with an inability to pay are provided care for little to no cost.

The  printed calendar depicts not only local scenery, but something more precious, the images of those children served by the employees and staff of Allied Rehabilitation.

It can be purchased at the Allied Services Website, or at any Allied Services facility throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania.

FRONT COVER: One Last Maple Leaf

In the highlands of eastern Pennsylvania, the first fall of snow often occurs in late October or early November before the trees have completely shed their leaves.  I shot this particular image in my neighborhood,  in the beginning of what became a fairly substantial snowfall just prior to Halloween.  I was struck by the contrast of the brightly colored maple leaves, in comparison to the somewhat drab appearing hemlock branches in the background.  It mimics a style of photography where one starts with a color image,   then selects a particularly colorful object in the image, and then converts the rest of the image to black and white.

In this case nature did the work for me.

JANUARY: The Sleigh Ride

Once again the Lands at Hillside serves as a setting for a calendar image.  The Lands at Hillside is a non-for-profit organization whose mission it is to preserve several old historic farms in our region.  They maintain the properties as a dairy operation, preserving traditional methods of farming and avoiding processed feeds, and hormone augmentation of the dairy herd.

I remember that morning several winters ago, when I was invited to the farm to witness the first use of an old sledge acquired by the farm.  My friend Will, who handled driving duties, at one point got the rig moving at a pretty good clip, an event which I was happy to photograph.  It was a marvelous day, and a joy to experience this wonderful traditional form of winter transportation.

FEBRUARY: Winter Fun at Lake Silkworth

I remember driving home, as I recall, from Ricketts Glen State Park down route 29 through the village of Lake Silkworth on a cold winters evening when, out of the corner of my eye, I noticed this scene .  Several people had taken to riding their ATV’s in a circular track on the snow-covered lake, as if racing for some imaginary trophy.  I watched for a time, and then realized that there might be a photograph in it after all.  I grabbed my Panasonic G1 which was sitting next to me on the seat, found a good vantage point, and shot several images one of which you see here.  I’m not sure it’s most aesthetic image in the calendar this year, but I enjoy this depiction of  people finding  joy in the winter, when the cold and snow cuts off the summer pleasures of lake living.

MARCH: The Statue of Liberty

The Sunday prior to Saint Patrick’s Day has become a joyful celebration in downtown Wilkes-Barre, and a wonderful landmark to denote the coming of spring.

I know, I know… Scranton has the third biggest Saint Patrick’s Day parade in the nation, dwarfing the celebration held in Wilkes-Barre.  But I like underdogs.

I’ve been going to the Wilkes-Barre event for probably 20 years now.  In the beginning it consisted of about 200 of my fellow Irishman watching a 15 minute parade of fire and garbage trucks, and a few modest floats, before repairing to the pub for a pint of Guinness.  It is now grown to a wildly successful event with crowds all throughout the parade route;  enjoying the many new bars restaurants and shops in the revitalized downtown.  In fact there’s a part of me that somewhat wistful for the old event, which was held on Saturday in direct competition with the parade in Scranton.  Changing it to the Sunday afterward increased the availability of parade participants and spectators alike.  And because most people work the following day, the crowd tends to remain “family friendly”.  With its success, there are new issues.  It’s now hard to park in Wilkes-Barre on parade day. Even worse, it can be a struggle to find open bar space to enjoy that Guinness, once the parade has ended (and it goes on a long time now).  Still I’m delighted with the success of the event and look forward to photographing it every year.

APRIL: The Daffodil

Sometimes simple subjects are the best.  I was walking in a neighborhood the Clarks Summit region when I noticed what I suspected was one of the first daffodils to emerge from the warming soils of spring.  I chose to shoot it from the rear of the bloom, a somewhat unconventional depiction of the blossom.  I shot it with a long lens and a wide aperture, in the hope of blurring the pine tree in the background in a pleasant way.  It seems to work, as our committee were fairly unanimous in their selection of the image to represent the month of April.

MAY: The Bridge at West Nanticoke

As I’ve discussed before, when one wishes to find early or late scenery with our four season climate, and mountainous terrain, it is often useful to go down to the river where spring starts  early, and fall finishes late. 

On this cool rainy day, I was exploring in the area of an old railroad trestle on the Susquehanna River at Nanticoke.  This scene, with the newly emerged, rain dampened maple leaves in the foreground, and the bridge in the background seemed interesting, and I shot several angles on it.  It is typical of early to mid May and our region, with the foliage emerging, but the climate seemingly reluctant to let go of the chill of early spring , and to embrace the warmth of summer.

JUNE: Dragon Boats

One of the underappreciated assets of the region is the Susquehanna River which meanders through the Wyoming Valley.  I often think the region has a modest psychological aversion to the Susquehanna, based on a variety of factors, including the local sense that it is somewhat polluted, its propensity to flood and cause great damage,  and the need for physical barrier (dikes) between the city and the river because of this propensity.  I think that the refurbished dike system, with its portals that improve access to the river, are beginning to allow us to exploit this wonderful resource.  There is much it has to offer.  One only has to spend time in other cities such as Boston or Philadelphia to realize the river is a potentially great recreational resource.

I think it’s wonderful that in June of every year (unless the river is over its banks); the region celebrates the Susquehanna with a Riverfest which is headquartered at Nesbitt Park.  There are a variety of activities including a kayak and canoe trip between Pittston in Wilkes-Barre.  There are food vendors, and educational exhibits largely involving the environment.

One interesting event is the dragon boat race, where local businesses assemble teams and compete with each other in a paddling race.  I shot this image during a practice session.  I know at least one of the teams pictured is composed of members of the Times Leader staff.

In many ways, the Susquehanna River is the very reason for the existence of Wilkes-Barre and the other towns up and down the Wyoming Valley.  I am glad that we have begun to celebrate its existence.

JULY: A House in Moscow

This is a simple image, but I think it conveys a pleasant sense about small town living in northeastern Pennsylvania.  I shot it on a Sunday morning in July, sometime late in the month.  To me there is something quite charming about this home. I love the beautiful stone chimney, the patriotic bunting, and the open porch, which in particular, is so much a part of the tradition of small town life.   .  The morning light is important to this image, trans illuminating the flowers, the shrubbery, and the decorations.

AUGUST: Scranton Skyline

I spent a good portion of my life in and around Scranton.  I went to college there, met and wooed my lovely wife there, and visited my in-laws over many holidays and summer breaks.  I really like the town.

It is much different from Wilkes-Barre, where I now spend most of my time.  It feels like a bigger city with a larger grid of downtown streets, and a lively tavern and restaurant community. 

I was walking on the square one late August day this year, when I encountered a reception for the freshman class of the University of Scranton, my alma mater.  It was being held on one of the grassy areas adjacent to the courthouse, with upperclassmen, dressed in “U of S” tee shirts mingling among the crowd.  Tables and tents were festooned with purple and white balloons, and I took several images of the event.  Afterwards I continued my walk, and this view of the skyline caught my eye.  When I returned home and began to edit the photos, I was unhappy with the images I had taken up the reception, but was happy with this photo and its depiction of some of the iconic features of the Scranton skyline.

SEPTEMBER: Garden at Moosic Lake

Labor Day always seems slightly sad.  Even if it is a glorious summer day as it often is,  it tends to denote the end of the cultural(if not the meteorological) season  of summer.  The children  will soon be back in school (if they are not already) and I believe that we adults lose a sense of empathic joy that we feel as we watch our children and grandchildren enjoy the summer vacation much as we once did.

There’s a temptation on Labor Day, to pull in the dock, and stow away the canoes, and to pack away the outdoor furniture.  We begin to retract our lives back into our homes in anticipation of the fall and winter.  Yet I am convinced that September to mid October are the loveliest months to be enjoying the outdoors, with cool, but comfortable temperatures, increasingly colorful foliage, and a dwindling insect population.  A patio fire pit, which can be out-of-place on warm summer nights, can be a great comfort and joy on cool fall evening.

If we let Labor Day stand for the end of summer, then we risk missing the best part of the outdoor season.

OCTOBER: Pumpkin Patch at Grassy Ridge

Obviously, the foliage season in the fall, offers a wealth of opportunity for landscape photographers.  This image of a pumpkin patch was captured in Noxen, on a beautiful October day this year.  I came upon the Grassy Ridge farm stand on the corner of routes 309 and 29, and asked permission to photograph the premises.  The owners were very gracious, and I spent about 45 minutes at the location acquiring a variety of photographs, including the one you see above, and the image and apple baskets gracing the back cover.  I shot the image with my Fuji film X100, a compact camera that allowed me to be inconspicuous, among the families enjoying a fall outing on that beautiful day.

NOVEMBER: November Corn

This image was acquired on a late fall evening in NewtonTownship.  The sun had just set, and the crisp fall later was rapidly growing colder.  I remember shivering slightly as I set up a tripod to make sure the image would be sharp despite the fading light.

In this image (which was featured in another article on this site)  I took advantage of the vivid sunsets one sees in the late fall and winter which I understand are due to the decreasing moisture content in the air as the atmosphere cools.

DECEMBER: The Kirby House at Christmas

The Kirby Episcopal house is a local landmark that I am proud to say, is part of the community of Glen Summit where I reside.  It is a gorgeous estate, originally built in the early 20^th century, by the Kirby family (the founders of Woolworth’s chain).  The main house is constructed of stone said to have been acquired from the Susquehanna River in the valley.  The gorgeous interior has been lovingly maintained and looks much the same as it would have when the Kirbys were in residence over the summer months.

There are multiple buildings on the property, with tennis courts,  a swimming pool and beautiful, ornate oriental gardens that often draw wedding parties looking for a place to capture post nuptial images.

It was a summer home for the Kirby family, until they donated it in the 1950s to the Episcopal diocese of Bethlehem.  It is now run it as a conference center, and is offered for use at a modest fee to nonprofit organizations.  It is busy throughout the summer months.

JANUARY 2014: Winter Scene, Butler Valley

I was driving in southern Luzerne County on a sunny January morning in 2011.  As usual I had several cameras on the front passenger seat of my car. There had been snow over the last 24 hours, putting an end to the drab brown winter landscape that had existed prior.

I spotted these two beautiful animals before they spotted me. I grabbed my D700, on which was mounted a 70-200 mm lens.  I got out of the car, and used a nearby fence post as a sort of makeshift monopod, to steady the long lens.  The longer focal length  allowed me to take several “candid” images before they sensed my presence and moved toward me out of curiosity.

  

I believe a camera upgrade ought to offer real advantages, over the equipment it replaces. 

People obviously do have the right to spend money on what they want. It’s easy though, to become deluded into thinking that new camera equipment will make you a better photographer, will make your images sharper, and your prints better; when in fact your time and money would be better spent on photographic instruction, better lenses, or a sturdier tripod.

That having been said, I(using my impeccable judgment) bought a new camera body several weeks ago.  I had a choice between purchasing a 36 megapixel, pro-level Nikon D800 “refurb” for about $2400, or the newer 24 megapixel Nikon D600 for roughly $2,100.  After considerable thought, I chose that the D600.  It was not the difference in cost that drove my decision, but rather the different characteristics of each model that prompted my choice.

The D 800 is unequivocally the pro-level body.  It is entirely made of magnesium, and is roughly the same size and feel of my D700.  It is sturdy and weather-sealed, and suitable for the rigors of full-time daily use.  Like many professional level bodies it feels as though it would make a pretty good weapon.  I admit that I love the feel of these devices, the weight in my hand, and the deliberate nature of the controls.

As a part-time landscape photographer however much of this robustness is of little advantage to me.  I shoot 3 to 4 times weekly and do not have to abuse my equipment the way that for instance, a full-time photojournalist would. And, I am happily not really concerned about the bragging rights of owning the Nikon “flagship”.

The D600 is built in a matter very similar to my D7000.  It too has a stout magnesium frame, with metal on the top and bottom, but rigid plastic on the front and back of the camera.  It also feels very sturdy, but not nearly as weighty as a pro level body.  It too, is well weatherproofed.  Though it has the viewfinder eyepiece of the more consumer oriented Nikon bodies, the viewfinder covers 100% of the captured image, which is actually an improvement over the viewfinder of my D700.  On the left upper surface of the camera, it uses the consumer level rotary dial to select camera modes, rather than the four button pro arrangement of the D800.  On the D600, they have added a small locking button on top of the dial, to prevent inadvertent control changes, an addition which is well appreciated.  Given this change, I now have little preference for either of the control designs.

The D600 is definitely lighter, and smaller than the D800.  Given my style of photography, this is a definite advantage, especially since much of my work involves hiking over considerable distances to arrive at shooting locales.

I like that the D600 uses the same battery, and the same remote release, as the D7000.

Now, on to the matter of the imagers.  Certainly a 36 megapixel imager, particularly one as fine as the one utilized by the D800 would be irresistible choice.  It is the top rated imager by DX0 Mark and is well-known to have extraordinary dynamic range as well as very high-resolution.  But high-resolution comes with disadvantages.  One of those problems has to do with lens diffraction, which on higher resolution sensors becomes a problem at tighter apertures.

There is also the matter of the sheer size of the files created by a 36 MP imager, and the storage and processing power that they require.

As I’ve stated elsewhere on the site, one can make a perfectly good 20x 30”print from a 12 megapixel large imager camera (micro 4/3 and larger) given good glass and good technique. Generally, this is as big as I need to print. Remember that, for really big prints, stitching multiple images into one is easily accomplished through Photoshop and other imaging software.

The 24 Mega pixel full-frame sensor on the D 600, rates just below that of the D 800 on DX0 Mark site.  More importantly, in terms of its high ISO capabilities, it rates higher than all Nikon cameras, save the vaunted D3s, higher even than the D4, which is also full frame, but only 16 megapixels.  To me this means that it can replace my D700 as a natural light event shooter (though my Fuji X100 remains my favorite for this work) while still serving as my optimum landscape camera body. Remember, this imager has the same resolution (but is otherwise more capable) as that of the $7000 Nikon D3x, a body I have lusted after for years.

If you look at the D600 sample images on DPreview, you can see that the high ISO images demonstrate a fine grain, with mainly luminance noise, and little color noise.  In my experience this cleans up very easily with Photoshop.  The D800 images reveal considerably more color noise to my eye.  This is certainly expected, given the smaller photo sites of the higher resolution imager.

Given this, and because I believe the 24 megapixels is all that I all that I really need, I chose the D600.  I’ve begun to shoot with it, and hope to post my experiences in the near future.  

If its capabilities match its performance on the camera review sites, then I may have a lightly used D700 for sale on Ebay.  Given the quality of the D600 imager, the money from that sale had better be spent on good Nikon glass.

Stand by. I’ll have more in a bit.

 

From a photographic standpoint, If not meteorologically, autumn 2012 has come to an end in this part of the Northeastern US.

Aesthetically, it was a pretty good season this year. Some of you may recall my complaints about the foliage last year.  I think last year, the fall colors were adversely affected by the very wet conditions we experienced in the late summer and fall in 2011 (remember Hurricane Irene).

 This year was much more normal, with maples and oaks producing strong red foliage to compliment the yellows and oranges of other species.

 

The foliage turned fairly early this year. Our usual peak, here in Northeastern Pennsylvania occurs in mid October.

 I started shooting up on the Pocono plateau in late September, and finished in the valley in late October.

The fall shooting came to a rather abrupt end with “super storm” Sandy. In our region, fortunately, that storm’s impact was quite modest (our hearts go out to those who are still struggling to rebuild). It did however strip the remaining leaves from the trees and thus abruptly end the autumn shooting season.

Not even the river valleys had any residual color.

And then, I travelled to Boston, so that my son could visit prospective colleges. There, autumn was still very much in progress. It was like a reset.

 For now however, in the Appalachians of Pennsylvania, shooting opportunities will be limited until the first snow falls.

Amazon is a wonderful retailer. I thought this as I printed off the return labels for my latest purchase from them. 

They make it very easy to return things, which I think sometimes is a service under-utilized by those of us who frequently purchase electronics and particularly cameras.  Newer is not always better. It is important to be able to discern when a new purchase will actually improve your ability to actually capture images, vs. when the new item merely answers need for something new and novel.

In September, I found myself in a mood to buy a new piece of camera gear. I definitely “get the itch” once in a while, though often, if there is nothing new and compelling on the market, I try to resist.

 I had been awaiting several model introductions.  In terms of my micro 4/3 gear, I’ve been shooting the Panasonic GH1 for several years now and began to think I would like an upgrade.  I’ve been looking at the Olympus OM-5.  Certainly it receives rave reviews, and its image quality is apparently first-rate.  My problem is that I do not believe the kit lens (the 12 – 50mm F3.5 – 6.3) is the best optic to purchase for the system, and body only OM-5’s were at the time, difficult to find.  So I decided to wait for the GH2 replacement.

This replacement was announced at Photokina several weeks ago.  The GH3 has several features we’ve been waiting for including a weather-sealed body and apparently a higher quality sensor.  For me however it has several critical flaws including the loss of the multi aspect feature of the previous series sensor (allowing 16:9 crops without much resolution loss).  More importantly it is significantly bigger than the previous series camera which completely negates one of my favorite features of the G-series, mainly their diminutive size.  So for the time being at least, the GH3 is “off the table”.

So I did some searching on the web on the various 4/3 bodies, focusing on features and image comparisons.  I read multiple reviews and after some deliberation, decided to give my current cameras replacement, the GH2 a try.  This camera was a mild refresh of the GH1, with at high-resolution sensor (16 vs. 12 mega pixels) better video which is not really an issue to me, and a touch screen interface on the LCD.  The best price I did find was on Amazon, so I ordered it up.

It arrived several days later, on a Friday afternoon and I look forward to spending a weekend shooting some early autumn foliage with my new acquisition.

The first thing I noticed was that the new body was much more “plasticy” than my GH1.  As the construction of the newer camera is said to be the same I didn’t completely understand this at first, until I examined the old body in comparison.  Until the GH2, G-series cameras were covered entirely in a rubber coating that was extremely tactile, and managed to obscure construction of the body beneath, which given the density the camera almost feels metallic.  The new camera offered no such solutions and seemed cheaper…not to mention more likely to slip out of one’s grip.

One of the nice features of the GH1 was the rear LCD.  This screen is fully articulated, covered in clear glass, with fairly high-resolution that has always made it easy to review ones images.  The GH 2 LCD has similar articulation, but now looks significantly different with a matte finish cover.  I suspect that the change has to do with the touch screen function of the LCD.  Unfortunately the new screen is not nearly as sharp and to my eye, makes it much more difficult to review images in terms of for instance, critical sharpness.  Plus the touch screen feature to me is not particularly attractive, as generally I try to keep my fingerprints off the LCD screen.  I’m perfectly happy controlling the camera’s functions from the buttons and menus.

I took both the GH1 and GH2 out on a walk, and shot them against each other, switching out the Lumix 20mm f1.7 lens, and shooting from a tripod. I could detect little if any difference in detail capture or noise characteristics between the two sensors despite the increase in megapixels, and the additional development time of the newer sensor (the test site Dx0 Mark rates the older sensor as the better of the two).

Here are some shots from my backyard, of the familiar shed I use as a target, again shot with  the GH1 , GH2 and the same Lumix 20mm lens. I can’t say that there’s no difference, but certainly the difference in minimal.

Another problem with the GH2 was the change in the control wheel between the earlier G series cameras and the GH2. The earlier cameras had the control wheel on the front grip, raised enough from the grip surface to easily utilize the push function of the wheel. On the new camera the wheel is on the back of the body, difficult to locate and nearly flush with the housing surrounding it. I found it much less intuitive and ergonomic.

Now I hear that the GH2 has much better video abilities compared to the GH1. This would be great, except that the latter camera already has better video than I really need right now.

So I packaged up the GH2, and sent it back to Amazon, long before the very generous 30 day return period expired.  I could see no advantage to the product in my usual workflow.

Now several weeks later, I see that OM-5s are becoming available body only. Looming on the horizon however is the Fujifilm XE-1 to use with an emerging system of great Fuji lenses.

No matter, because I still love to shoot the older Panasonic,  perhaps even more now, having been exposed to its newer alternative.

 First off, let me say, I’m not really a fan of Apple products.

Now I freely admit that products from Cupertino tend to be beautifully designed and elegantly manufactured. Operating an iPhone or a Mac Book Air, one cannot help but marvel at the pleasant tactile experience they offer. But there is just something about Apple products that bugs me. Maybe it’s just the sense of smug superiority exuded by the employees of typical Apple store, or worse yet, the typical Apple user. Maybe it’s the expense of purchasing and Apple product, vs. competing computing devices. And maybe it’s the touch of inflexibility… the sense that the computer knows better than you do, that seems to be infused into the various Apple operating systems. At any rate, call me a troglodyte, but I tend to be more comfortable with other products.

For instance, rather than the ubiquitous iPhone, I use a Blackberry (albeit a Blackberry 9930 which is considered passé, but is still quite capable). My computers are PC based, running Windows 7. And perhaps my most grievous sin, especially as a photographer, is to own a tablet that is not an iPad.

This is sort of a review of my Asus Transformer TF 300, which I have discovered is an extremely helpful tool in pursuit of photography and a great alternative to its Apple competitor.

How was it that I came to snub the ubiquitous iPad? It started at the retailer. I realized that I needed a tablet to review photography on location and to show images to clients etc. So I visited the tablet display at my local box store, and talked to the 20-something-year-old salesperson about the choices available. He suggested that as I was reasonably computer literate, that I might actually prefer an Android tablet to even the vaunted “new iPad”. After looking all over the various brands, I chose the new Asus Transformer TF 300, which has similar processing power to the new iPad, a micro SB card slot, and the availability of the keyboard that would essentially transform (get it?) the tablet into a net book with an SD card slot, and the USB Port, options sorely lacking in an iPad.

As I drove home with my new acquisition, I called my younger brother who is a computer consultant, to describe my purchase. He reacted strongly, aghast at my decision to spurn the mighty iPad for such a pedestrian device. Recognizing his expertise (and not wanting to hear about it for the next twenty years if the Asus was a problem), I drove back to the store, and also purchased an iPad ( The store has a two week return policy).

I opened the iPad first. There is no doubt that the packaging of the device was very elegant. It appeared that almost as much care had gone into the design of the packaging of the product, as in the product itself.

The device itself was a typical Apple product. The case was slim, reasonably rugged, and beautifully finished. One cannot help but admire the clever magnetic display cover available for the device. The display was admittedly beautiful with great color, and excellent detail. The device was “snappy”. Moving from screen to screen was quick and responsive. “So far, so good”, in terms of my overall impression of the device.

That’s when I actually attempted to use the device in the manner that I intended. Apple is so obsessive about controlling the content on their iPad that, at least for me, they have destroyed its utility. The simple act of loading photos in the device requires one to use the annoying iTunes program I grew to hate with my iPod. I actually specified some photos to place in the device from my computer, and found that the iPad had made it’s own decision, perhaps preferring some other photos to the ones I had chosen.

Annoyed, I attempted to delete the unwanted files, only to find no way to do so. So I called my brother, the iPad fan, and ask how I might proceed with this. We tried a few things, to no avail. My brother then called my older sister, who is considered the actual Apple “guru” within the family. It turns out that there was no way to delete the files, and once they resided within the iPad, they would be there forever (or until it was formatted). Needless to say, I found this extremely frustrating.

I then addressed the Asus Tablet. I noted that the box was essentially identical to the Apple packaging, mimicking the same high quality materials but rendered in black rather than Apple signature white. So thorough was the mimicry,  I assume that this is a somewhat “in your face” gesture on the part of Asus.

The Asus Tablet is roughly the same size and as the iPad (slightly larger, but lighter). It is roughly $120 cheaper than the equivalent “new” iPad. It sports a textured plastic back, rather than the elegant metal back of the iPad which helps, as I understand it, to improve its wi-fi and GPS sensitivity.

Comparing the “guts” of the two tablets, they both have roughly similar specifications. In terms of processors, the third generation iPad has a dual core Apple branded 1.2GHz processor, whereas the Asus tablet sports an Nvidia Tegra 3, 1.4 GHz quad-core processor. PC World has done a technical comparison of the competing tablets here for those who wish to see more specific details.

Then there is the issue of the screen, which as a photographer I thought would give the new iPad an unbeatable advantage. The “new” iPad, as most photographers know, has the so-called “Retina” display with a resolution of 2048p x1536p, vs. 1280p x 800p for the Asus and most others. Numerically the advantage of the iPad seems huge. Using photo files I loaded on both devices, I examined each image closely. Though the Apple screen seem to have a slight advantage in terms of crispness and color, the differences were not that extraordinary, and to me, unimportant for the kind of use I planned for the tablet  (rough screening of images in the field).

Although there are laboratory benchmarks available that suggest that in terms of processing speed, the new iPad slightly outperforms the Asus Android tablet, the difference in real life is imperceptible when one operates the tablet side by side. Both are very responsive and react equally quickly to finger flicks. In both, the installed “apps” run quickly and smoothly.

Now I recognize that the number of apps available in the Apple world far exceeds what is available for the Android tablet, but jeeze, how much is enough? When I shop in the various Android stores I can find more than enough applications to suit me (especially compared to the Blackberry app store, which I still find adequate). For instance I bought an app called Photo Mate Pro for $6.69 that opens my all of my RAW files; allow light edits, and conversion to other file formats. It even has a screen calibration feature.

For me however, the most important attribute of each device is the operating system. If anything, I am slightly more familiar with the iOS OS than the Android Ice Cream Sandwich OS that come with the Transformer (I’d never used an Android device), Nonetheless, I found the latter was far more intuitive to me than the Apple OS. There are lots of neat features on the Asus, from the “one click to shut down all processes widget” on the front screen, and the neat way it organizes your apps. I’ve used the device for about three months with no freeze-ups or other maladies.

The deal breaker for me with the iPad was that with the Android tablet, I can hook the device to my computer, root around in the file structure, make new files folders, and then dump images into them, as though the device were part of my computer. I can easily erase files that I don’t want. With the Apple product, I am forced to work through iTunes, which severely limits the control of content I can place on my own device. This annoys me on multiple levels.

Another advantage of the Android tablet is the memory and storage options available. Rather than paying  an outrageous amount for more internal memory, with the Transformer tablet, I can merely buy an inexpensive 36GB micro SD card and insert it in the available slot (not available on iPads), instantly increasing the 16GB in available device memory). I can keep multiple micro SD cards loaded with different files such as photos or video, and interchange them, vastly expanding my options with the device. There’s an available USB adapter for the Asus tablet as well as an SD card reader (much like the Apple products). And again, the available keyboard, it transforms the tablet into and Asus netbook with a full size SD card slot and a USB Port. The keyboard also drastically increases is the battery life of the tablet.

So for me, the flexibility the Asus device, trumps the elegant appearance and higher screen resolution of the “new” iPad. That’s why I ended up formatting the iPad, packaging up all of that elegant white boxing material, and returning it to Best Buy.

It’s why the Asus Transformer is fast becoming an invaluable tool for my photographic pursuits.

Last year at this time, I was in the middle of a photographic slump. 

 I wrote about the problem here.  In brief, I felt as though, at least in my usual haunts, I had captured everything photographable.  This plus some environmental issues, rather drastically lowered my photographic output over the Summer of 2011.  I began to wonder whether I was actually losing interest in photography.

 This year it’s different.  My interest in capturing images is back.  And I hate to admit that I think it’s due to a new equipment purchase, in this case  the Fujifilm X 100.

 Roughly a month ago, I published my initial thoughts on the camera after several weeks of usage.  I have now been carrying it for roughly six weeks, and I think I have developed a better sense of its strengths and weaknesses.

 I do recognize that the novelty involved in any new equipment purchase, can reignite an interest in the activity connected with the equipment.  But that increased enthusiasm can quickly flag, if the results one obtains do not reinforce the initial burst of enthusiasm.  I do think of camera gear that I bought with great enthusiasm, only to be disappointed in the results.  Actually, I made a new gear purchase early last summer.  My disappointment with it probably added to my summer slump.

 This year it’s different.  I find myself looking for reasons to shoot with this camera.  There is something liberating about are relatively compact and discreet camera that produces excellent image quality.  My initial impressions of this camera have only been reinforced.  It has excellent resolution.  The combination of the excellent imager and the fine 35 mm equivalent lens produce rich detail which allows relatively generous cropping when necessary given the limitations of the lenses focal length. It’s not 24 mp, but it’s very adequate. Prints are gorgeous up to the 16”x 22” sizes my printers can handle.

 I love the bokeh this lens can produce.  I find it useful for both shooting portraits, and for landscape work, particularly in close quarters.  At f2 the lens has excellent quality with great sharpness in the center of the field.  Nonetheless, one still has the advantage of an APS sized sensor, which gives wonderful depth of field when stopped down.

 It’s low light capabilities continued to delight.  I still have yet to take the camera off of the auto ISO setting.  I have increased the minimum shutter speed somewhat to 1/60 to reduce motion blur during indoor shooting. I do love the low light capabilities of this camera. I continue to notice luminance noise at high ISOs, but it is relatively fine, and adds a charming graininess to the images  especially when converted to black and white. There is very little color noise visible up to ISO 3200 if exposures are right.

 I have been using the camera with the filter adapter permanently attached.  I bought an inexpensive pinch cap to use on a daily basis, and I am storing the elegant magnetic lens cap so to avoid losing it.  I would like to have it available at the point where I eventually sell the camera.

 I wondered whether I would find the 35 MM focal length limiting.  Certainly this is not a camera for sports photography, but when used as a “walk around” camera,  I’ve not felt the least bit limited by the fixed lens.  Other than cropping, there’s not much of a work around when one desires a longer focal length.  A wider field of view however can be obtained by shooting several images of the same scene and combining them in a panorama which also gives you the advantage of higher resolution for printing.

 There are definitely some quirks to this camera that require a “work around”

 It took me perhaps 5 minutes to capture the image below because I could not obtain an autofocus lock on the flowers in the foreground (the camera kept focusing on the tree in the background).  I did find the manual focusing to be a bit problematic, in part because I had forgotten temporarily how to use the image magnifying feature.  Most of the time however, the autofocus works fine.  When it does not, it most often means that the focus selector button on the side of the camera has become inadvertently repositioned.

Dynamic range in RAW files is certainly adequate but less than my Fuji S-5. There is little retention of highlights; one is more likely to obtain additional information from the shadows, similar to the Nikon D 7000.

Yeah, I know that the battery life is not great.  I also resent the point-and-shoot type battery life indicator which only warns you of impending battery failure about a millisecond before the power quits.  Happily the batteries are cheap and of the same model used by my Fujifilm F31, so it’s not a problem to have several on hand.

I’ve been trying to figure out why this camera makes me want to shoot again.  It’s not nearly as functional and versatile as my Nikon DSLRs which have comparable or even better imagers.  It’s only slightly smaller than my Panasonic GH-1 which at least as a landscape camera has roughly equal image quality.  I have to believe that it has something to do with the quality of the files that the camera generates, which exhibit the rich color palette that I’ve come to expect from Fujifilm imagers.  I think it’s also the characteristics of the lens that I discussed earlier in the article.  I think also I continue to take tactile pleasure in the manual controls and the subjective feel of this lovely little instrument.

I was in a camera shop (remember those?) in Boston this week, and finally got to handle the X100’s bigger brother, the X Pro 1. I actually came away underwhelmed. It felt much less dense and thus, less substantial than the X100, as though the same components were placed in a larger “box”. There no diopter adjustment to the viewfinder, like that on the X100. The shutter on the X Pro 1 is significantly louder. And the difference that I’m seeing in the files is entirely the result of the newer cameras extra megapixels. And of course, the X Pro 1 with a lens, is twice the money of the X 100. For now, I’ll pass.

I’ve been telling people who ask my advice about a camera purchase, that they should not favor cameras because of megapixel count or zoom range, as most often, in compact cameras, those features actually reduce image quality. I now realize that the X 100 is a strong validation of this concept.

This camera bodes well for Fujifilm, and I cannot wait to see what they give us as a follow on product. But for now, I’ll just keep shooting.

I’ve long been a fan of cameras made by Fujifilm.

My first digital SLR was a Fujifilm S2 Pro, which was a Nikon N 80-based film camera body, with digital elements “grafted” on.  Compared to the better integrated Canon and Nikon digital SLRs, the Fuji was seen as a “frankencamera”, requiring two different battery sets to control its analog and digital functions.  It was however during its time, quite popular due to two issues: number one, very high-resolution for an SLR at its price point, and number two, a characteristic color palette which accentuated reds and greens and was particularly flattering to skin tones.

The follow-up camera, the S3 Pro, which still resided within a Nikon body, cleaned up some of the dichotomy between the old film camera bits and the new digital workings within it.  Now one set of AA batteries ran the entire camera.  The S3 had another trick up its sleeve.  It used two different sets of pixels to achieve very high dynamic range, designed particularly for wedding photographers who have to capture both the white gown of the bride, and the black tuxedos of the groom.  Like the S2 before it, the camera was quirky and slow but was capable of producing images like no other.  With Fujifilm cameras, it seems,  you learn to work around the problems for the sake of the quality of the  files you can produce.

 I think that people and photographers that gravitate to Fujifilm pro-level cameras (Fuji  point-and-shoot cameras are more normal in behavior) have a certain personality type.  They will put up with indignities that no user of other mainstream camera gear would tolerate.  They do it because they perceive something about the image files that they cannot obtain with other, more user-friendly gear.

With the demise of the Fujifilm DSLR bodies (the S 5 Pro was the last) I find myself shooting Nikon bodies which were, after all, the basis for  the Fuji camera bodies. They inevitably have very competent, color accurate imagers. I love their ergonomics.  I still have an S5 ,which lives in the body of a Nikon D 200, and shoot it occasionally, particularly for portraits. Unfortunately, the lack of resolution of this older camera is becoming more obvious as the years pass.

Now Fujifilm has history of building fine camera bodies (remember the Hasselblad X Pan?). So I watched with great interest as Fujifilm relaunched a new line of cameras,  built entirely on their own, and designed for the enthusiast/professional market.

This time the camera form was a range-finder-type camera body.  I ignored the first version, the X100 as I thought its fixed focal length 35 MM lens would be too limiting.  I started to pay attention when the X pro 1 was introduced, with a 16 MP imager and a new line of Fuji built lenses.

The camera was relatively expensive, but far cheaper than the Leica M9 that it was designed in some ways to emulate.  Finally it seemed I would complete my search for a small discrete compact camera with superlative image quality.

Then, in an article on the web, I saw a photo demonstrating the relative size of the X Pro 1 compared to other cameras, including its “little brother” the X100.  It seemed to me, that I might just as well carry one of my DSLRs as the new Fuji given the relative sizes.  I noticed in the same picture however, that the X 100 was quite diminutive. Given the reports of its stellar image quality, I thought it might be interesting to give one a try.  I ordered one (along with an extra battery, the filter adapter, and lens hood) on the B+ H website, and in two days the package arrived in my office.

The packaging it arrives in sets a tone.  Within the brown B +H box, surrounded by inflatable bladders, was a smaller Fujibox box, all in black.  Within this are two other packages: one a very elegant presentation box which cradles the X100 on a black silk liner.  This suggests a highly premium product, an impression I’m sure Fuji is trying for with this “X” product line.

The second box contains all the incidentals, such as the lens cap, the chargers, and the instruction disks and included software.  The whole effect as much classier than finding the camera body wrapped in plastic and surrounded by Styrofoam in a plain cardboard box.

Handling the camera was a tactile pleasure.  Even though I use professional level equipment, I was unprepared for the nice finish and unusual heft of the X100.  The beautifully milled manual controls dials, and the classic design, all create an emotional first response from, ehem… “experienced” photographers.  Given the comments and reviews I read about this camera, I had every hope that the quality of the presentation would be more than skin deep.

My camera came with an earlier version of the firmware than he is now current and I got a glimpse into some of the issues that frustrated early reviewers.  For instance, though I’m no stranger to camera controls, but for the life of me, I could not  find the auto ISO control which turned out to be in a separate part of the menu structure from the manual ISO control. (a problem fixed on the latest update)

I did shoot with a camera for a short time with the earlier firmware, but not enough to form any firm conclusions.  I do believe the autofocus was less reliable before I upgraded the firmware.

Armed now with the version 1.2 firmware, I began to use the camera.  Following the advice of several reviewers whose primary use for the camera was street photography (my intended use also) I set the camera to use the optical viewfinder (the viewfinder can also display an electronic, through the lens image), the focus point in the center of the frame, the lens on f2.2 and the and the ISO control to automatic allow me to drift between ISO 200, and ISO 3200 with a minimal shutter speed of 1/40 of a second.

I sought out several places where I knew the indoor light would be challenging, either because of high lights and shadows, or mixed color temperatures.

The X100 is an absolute delight when shooting indoors in natural light indoors.  Even though it sports a smaller APS – C sensor, it has the among the best low light characteristics of any camera I own, challenging even my D700.  Most often indoors, it defaults to ISO 3200. Still, even at F2.0 it  delivers sharp detailed photographs with a very fine grain structure (mainly luminance noise with very little color noise) which can either be left in color, or converted to very nice-looking black and white images.  It is the first camera I feel comfortable shooting, set on auto ISO.

I did notice when I move to bright light situations, the auto ISO does not always adapt down to lower values.  This may have been some quirk because of how I set the camera up, but I’m watching this nonetheless. Luckily, the camera’s high ISO performance is good enough, that if this happens, you don’t necessarily ruin the shot.

 So far, manual focusing seems somewhat difficult, due to the lack of a reliable focus indicator.  The autofocus seems to work fine and reasonably reliably.  If the little square in the viewfinder turns green and beeps, then generally the camera is correctly focused and the image will be sharp.  Moving the focus point around the viewfinder is clumsy compared to the G-series Panasonics, for instance, where while looking through the viewfinder, you can easily activate and move the focus point only using your right hand.

On the X100, the activation button is on the left, and really requires you to take the camera away from your face to move focus. It’s a small issue for me but represents poor interface design. For this camera and it’s  capabilities however, you adapt.

The parallax correction function on the optical viewfinder is interesting, but sometimes it’s easier on close-up images to quickly switch to the electronic viewfinder,which is quite good, and avoids having the right lower corner of the image blocked by the lens (particularly if the lens hood is in place).

I was curious about the resolution of the camera compared to others with a 12 megapixel sensor.  The most comparable camera that I own is my Panasonic Lumix GH1 for which I have the 20 MM f1.7 lens, a somewhat similer equivalent focal length as the fixed Fuji lens on the smaller 4/3 sensor.

I know the GH1 to have high-resolution and an excellent metering capability though it is not the best choice for low light photography.  Panasonic imagers also tend to have a green sensor cast which I usually correct during raw processing.  I used my usual backyard scene and shot both cameras at their lowest ISO (200 for the Fuji, 100 for the Panasonic) the lenses were set at f5.6.  This yielded slightly different shutter speeds for both cameras.  In fact the first Fuji shots were rather under-exposed but then I noticed that I was using “average” metering.  I switched theFuji to “multi” metering and the exposure became much more in line with what the Panasonic was doing.

Here are the comparison shots.  I would say that on the main the resolution is roughly equal.  I will say that the Fuji file is cleaner, even  at the higher base ISO (check out the window glass).  It is interesting that when I “pushed” the under-exposed Fuji file to equal the exposure of the appropriately exposed Panasonic file, the noise levels were quite similar. The Fujifilm image tends to be smoother and more “film-like” than the slightly harsher Lumix image. 

When I think of using the two cameras, I think of the GH1 as a better camera to take for instance, on a backpacking trip, where its small interchangable lenses would give it maximal versatility.  It also has a much better user interface and better video capability, should that be necessary.

But there is just something about the Fuji.  It is somewhat intangible, but the appearance of the files, the low noise levels, the excellent dynamic range, the feel of the camera in your hand, and yes even the quirkiness of the controls, give it an undeniable charm especially to a photographer of a certain age (like me).  I love the quiet shutter, and how stealthy it is in a street shooting situation.  And like all of the Fujiis I have owned, there’s something wonderful about the images that produces.

So I guess I’m keeping this camera.  The two week deadline for its return has passed and I’m still snapping happily away.  It makes me think that the X Pro1 might be an interesting companion purchase at some point.  For now however,  the X100 makes me very content.

For the second part of this review, Click here.

A Pretty Good Little Lens.

I think we all understand the advantages of larger camera imagers. Really we do. On SLRs, “full frame” imagers the size of 35mm film (FX imagers in Nikon speak) can provide cleaner output particularly at high ISO settings.  They allow wide angle, short focal length lenses to have their full field of view. They allow us the shallow depth of field many photographers, particularly those shooting portraits, tend to desire.

Much is also written about the subjective quality of images produced by larger chips.

For landscape photographers, shooting DSLRs, these characteristics are less compelling.  Most of the time, we are looking for lenses with a larger depth of field so that more of the scenery we are shooting is in focus. The ability to go wide is not unappreciated, but there are many “DX” lenses that offer a wide field of view.

The burden of full-frame imagers includes larger, heavier lenses which need to be toted around in order to obtain the full measure of quality the sensor can produce. These larger lenses tend to be more expensive.  The cost of a Nikkor 24-70 mm f 2.8, arguably the finest mid-range zoom offered by that manufacturer, is roughly $1900 US, at B+H Photo as I write this.  Price aside, this big, beautiful optic weighs almost 2 pounds. This is significantly more than the weight of the D700 to which it would be attached.

Because of these issues, over the years, I have developed several workarounds for using my full-frame cameras in the field.

The first work around is that I don’t actually use FX very much for landscape work.  My D7000 body for instance, is more compact and has more resolution.  The smaller DX sensor utilizes lenses that are lighter and less expensive.  I think in particular of my Tamron 17-50 mm f2.8, or my Nikkor 16-85 mm f3.5 both of which are excellent landscape choices.

The second work around is my use of “prime” lenses when I do venture out with full-frame. This appeals to both my lazy, and my cheap side, as these lenses tend to be inexpensive and light.  They also tend to be very high quality, especially at the modest price point at which they can be acquired.  Their small size and weight has made the D 700 very manageable for hiking.  There is however the need to carry multiple lenses, and the problem of changing them in the field, sometimes during conditions that might tend to foul the sensor.

So I’ve been looking for a small FX capable lens, a midrange zoom, of reasonable quality, but small and light enough to keep things manageable on the trail.  Preferably, it should be a modest cost.  And I think I’ve found it.

The Nikkor 28 – 70 mm F3 .5 is a small AF-D lens made in the 1990s.  It is an old school design, of polycarbonate construction, with a metal lens mount, but like many of the AF-D lens line of the time, well made and finished.  It is very reminiscent of my Nikkor 50 mm f1.8, and my 85 mm f1.8 in terms of build quality.  It is slightly smaller in size compared to the latter.

I became interested in the lens when I saw it on multiple websites reviewed quite favorably, especially given its astounding price point.  (I bought mine for roughly $70.00 on EBay).

Now I love a deal..  For $70.00 I’m definitely willing to “take a flier” and see whether it could be a useful addition to my photo kit.

I try hard not to be a “lens snob”.  Certainly there is a minimal quality level that a useful lens has to meet.  I believe that the right scene, the right set up, and the right shooting technique, tend to trump ultimate lens quality.  If the optic has reasonable center and peripheral frame sharpness, with decent contrast, it will not be the reason your photographs sucks. You may have to shoot at F5-F8 for the lens to perform well, but hell I tend to do that anyway, even with better glass.

I took the lens with me this week on several hikes.  I was easily able to carry the D700, with the zoom attached in my small camera bag.  It focuses using a screw drive, and so it requires one of a higher-end Nikon bodies for it to properly auto focus.  On the D700, it focused quite quickly and accurately.

One anachronism about this lens is its rotating front element.  This means that the front of the lens spins with the focus ring. This makes the use of a polarizing filter somewhat awkward in that one has to constantly readjust the filter every time the focus is changed by the photographer, or by the autofocus.  The lens is also unusual in that it tends to shrink and grow with both with zooming and focusing.

An advantage regarding filters on the 28-70 mm is that they are only 52 mm in diameter and thus considerably cheaper than the 77 mm filters on the pro-level lenses.  The rotating front element problem can be dealt with by focusing manually (so nothing moves without your permission) and carefully adjusting the filter to maximize the colors in the viewfinder.  I quickly got used to this technique.

So for the ultimate issue… what is the quality of this $70.00 lens? Actually, it’s quite good.  Obviously an f3.5 lens is not as “fast” as more extravagant models.  For a landscape photographer used to shooting in a reasonable light and on a tripod, this is not much of an impediment.  I find that the optical quality lens is quite good.  I’ve included in this article some sample images shot with this lens both in the field and indoors.

By way of comparison I offer the same image acquired with a similar vintage Nikkor 50 mm f1.8 which is well known to be sharp, and have low distortion.  I shot both at 50 mm and f 5.0 with the camera bench mounted. All processing was the same.  Here is 100% magnification of a peripheral portion of the scene shot.  I think that you can see the differences between these two lenses are fairly minimal.

Now I have no doubt that bigger pro-level Nikkor glass may be better quality, but the tradeoffs of weight and bulk mean that this diminutive midrange zoom is rather useful in its own way.

One last issue.  Apparently this lens is someone obscure.  When I developed photos in Camera Raw shot with the lens, the automatic lens correction defaults to the 70-200mm f2.8 settings. On the PTL Lens plug in for Photoshop, the corrections ar based on a Sigma 28-70mm f2.8. I have no idea whether this is deliberate or accidental, but the lens is not mentioned on the  former software’s Nikon lens list.  Regardless, the corrections in terms of distortion and vingnetting seem modest.

In summary I think for myself shooting this is a worthwhile little optic.  It’s small and rugged enough and frankly, if I drop it off a cliff, or into a pond, I can afford a $70.00 I will require to replace it.  And I think it has sufficient quality that it should never get in the way of capturing an excellent image.

After all, isn’t that what we truly require of any lens?

My thoughts on the D 800 have generated lively discussions on the Forums at Dpreview and FM.

Now before I start sounding like certain other self-important people on the blogoshere, I want to say that: #1 a lot of the discussion centered on what an idiot I must be to not see the grand plan, and #2 my ignorance regarding  lens choice for this camera. One person was kind of “stalking” me on the points I made in the article, posting multiple reformatted versions of his critiques. It was a little creepy.

All this aside, I learned a lot hearing from people on the Nikon FM forum and the Dpreview  forum dedicated to pro Nikon DSLRs, which is why I post there. A lot of professional, knowledgeble photographers contribute, which can make it challenging to “wade in” with an opinion.

We’ve long been told that the reason that the larger-sensored high res bodies can cost so much is that the cost to manufacture the sensors is high, and the yield is low. This was said to justify the US$3000 difference between the D3 and D3x. Now we have a 36MP FX chip  in a US$3000 weather-sealed body. What happened?

I can only presume that either:

A. they lied about the extra cost of the D3x chip, or B. more likely, something’s happened to make the cost of manufacturing the imagers go way, way down.

Maybe it has something to do with how they’ve refubished their manufacturing  status post earthquake/tsunami.

Perhaps we’re getting to a point where sensor cost will be less important, and that the camera bodies features will be the cost driver. Sort of like in the film era, when a new F5, the most premium Nikon film body made, cost  US$2000 (but the derivitive 6mp Kodak DCS 660 cost US$30,000)

I think we got a flavor for this first with Canon and their  5D series, and then later when Nikon placed their brand new 16mp sensor not in a D300s replacement, but (according to some) “wasted it” in a prosumer body (albeit a very good prosumer body).

If this is true, then in the future Nikon higher-end bodies, you could put any sensor in any body style. Want a smaller, lighter camera, and only need 150,000 shuttter clicks then there’s a Dx00 with your choice of FX sensors available. Ditto if you need a more rugged, longer lifespan instrument.

Maybe, given the price of the D800, there can be a D4x with 36mp, the body and shutter of a D4 and with 8 fps shooting speed…for US$6500.

We’re entering a new era of digital photography. I think I’m going to like it.

I’m still gonna need better lenses.