It starts the way it always does. In December, I check the Penn State schedule for spring break. Given that our daughter, and now our son have been students there over the last 6 years; that week will be our family ski trip, generally the first full week of March. We will spend it in Lake Placid.

I have had almost no regrets over the years. The Adirondacks in early March typically feature abundant snow cover, and moderate temperatures, and we generally we have a wonderful winter vacation.

2016, however, broke the mold, Last year in March, Lake Placid for the first time in 25 years was snowless. Though Whiteface, the downhill resort was open, given my deteriorating knee, it was of little use to me. My wife and son skied when it wasn’t raining. I did a little hiking, but a lot of eating and drinking. At the end, it didn’t seem like a good entertainment value for the long drive required to get there and return. Not to worry I thought; this year is clearly a fluke.

 

Winter 2017 seemed different. Though in Pennsylvania, the winter had been mild with minimal snow, the Adirondacks were far enough north for most of the precipitation to be white. I sat at my desk at work, scanning Facebook posts by my Lake Placid friends describing their latest winter adventures. In mid-February with my vacation weeks away, the backcountry ski conditions report was positively giddy with the wonderful snowpack that had accumulated. And, I had a brand new knee.

Then came the warmth, and several strong rain events. By late February, the giddy was gone, along with the snow. Our vacation loomed.

We tried to remain optimistic. But when the Friday Lake Placid forecast was in (we were set to leave Saturday) it called for a bitterly cold weekend, followed by three days of fifty-degree weather with rain. Our weather in Pa, though similar would be 5-10 degrees warmer, and with less precipitation.

After consulting with my wife, we threw in the towel, and unpacked.

My kid (and several friends) however, had purchased advance ski tickets that were nonrefundable. Twenty-two-year-olds have no issue with driving 6 hours for 2 days of frigid skiing. So we gave them the keys.

Now I don’t really have a problem with staying home. It gives me time to work around the house when the weather was bad, and at least hike when the weather is good. It did feel like we needed to do go somewhere. Given the 50-60 degree temps in the middle of the week (3/5-7), it occurred to me that we ought to go south, to where we might find even more spring-like conditions.

We decided to travel during the balmy mid-week weather, first to the inner harbor at Baltimore for a night and then drive up US 95 to stay at a 1780s hotel in our old neighborhood in Center City Philadelphia.

Baltimore was lovely, but quiet, given the time of year. I had brought along both my X Pro 2 (with the 18-55mm zoom in the bag, but with the 56mm f1.2 mounted). I also brought along my X100t with the 2 lens converters.  For some reason, I ended up shooting only the X100, mainly with the native lens or the teleconverter. This is not an uncommon circumstance, and the reason my X100f is on order. I shot in raw/ monochrome jpeg, and I really liked the images I was seeing in the LCD.

We had drinks at Fells Point, and seafood at the Rusty Scupper, a restaurant I had in the past generally avoided as a tourist trap but found was quite good. The evening and night images I acquired looked really promising. The following day we took in the highly recommended National Aquarium, before loading up for the 2-hour drive northeast to “Philly”.

My wife Cathy and I went to medical school there and later did our respective fellowships in the city.  For a time we lived at Tenth and Spruce, 4-5 blocks from the lovely Morris Hotel where we stayed. This location is central to much of Philly’s interesting neighborhoods, including Jeweler’s Row, the Independence Mall area, the Italian Market, and the “Old City” area near to the river. I wandered past my medical school. Formerly, it was named for the author of the Declaration of Independence. It now bears the name of a clothier (a very rich clothier). I ate a cheesesteak (onions, cheese whiz, mushrooms). And I shot a fair number of images. In the morning we had a lovely spring breakfast at an outdoor café on Washington Square.

Sometime on Thursday morning I filled the SD card I had been shooting, and changed it out. As is my practice over many years, I place it upside down in its case to indicate that it is full, and then placed it (along with spent batteries) at the bottom of my camera bag where I will notice them later. I shot a few more images on the new card before starting the trip for home.

Some of you may be noticing at this point the relative paucity of images from Baltimore and Philly in this article. Where are they? Well, I wish I knew. For when I returned home, I could not find the spent card with all of my files. Perhaps it fell out of my bag at some point later in the morning when I walked around town. Maybe it fell out in our room.

This is the first time this has happened to me and it is quite disturbing. I am hoping that perhaps the hotel cleaning staff will come upon it, but I am not hopeful.

Back in the mountains, as I write this it is 12 degrees. Roughly 8 inches of snow fell here yesterday, with the promise of a significant Nor’easter later this week. My road is again snow-covered and undoubtedly re-freezing. Damn. Maybe by next weekend, we will be skiing again. Oh well, such is March on the Pocono plateau.

 

Addendum: We did indeed have a nor’easter.  On March 14 and 15th, my little community in the mountains saw accumulations of 32 inches of new snow, breaking a previous 24-hour snow total, that was originally set in 1993.  The Valley cities had nearly as much.  It remained cold after the storm.

Needless to say, there is once again cross-country skiing on the Pocono plateau.

 

I gotta admit, I’m ready for spring.

 

Here it is mid-February, in the middle of another unusual winter in Pennsylvania. Ten days ago there was a crusty cover of snow on the ground here in the Pocono region. Unfortunately, an altitude related ice storm seven days ago wrecked the brief period of cross-country skiing we had enjoyed after a 9-inch snowfall.   This week, a 5 day period of >50-degree weather finished things off, cruelly teasing us into thinking that spring is around the corner (it is most certainly not).

I am somewhat heartened that this heat wave will not be fully expressed up in the Adirondacks, where I hope to be recreating in several weeks. Nonetheless, these lackluster winters can be very discouraging to those of us still enjoy snow sports and the photographic opportunities that “normal” winter provides.

Unfortunately, at this latitude, it appears that for at least this year, winter will be a cold damp brown and gray season with occasional teases of snow. I am starting to hate winter, but for different reasons that most of my friends.

The worse thing about this has to do with living on a dirt road. For most of the winters over the last 25 or so years, the road will freeze in mid-to-late November and then remain frozen, and often snow-covered, until sometime in March when we get our first extended bout of above freezing weather. There will then be a roughly 2 week period, where the road becomes soft and unstable. Driving on it can feel as though he will sink down to your axles; it leaves our cars coated with splats of red shale mud. Then one day the road dries and compacts, and is all is well for the remainder of the year.

This year, the road has been through maybe 3 cycles of freeze/thaw which is getting rather irritating. Freeze/thaw also leads to large potholes in the paved roads. I really hate this.

I sometimes think I should either move permanently to the Adirondacks for January-March, or give up on the whole winter thing, go south, wear shorts with black socks, and gradually prepare for death.

On a happier note, I pretty much have determined that I will purchase a new X100f along with at least the TCL X1 100 mark II teleconverter (I use this much more than the wide converter). It will be extremely pleasant not to forget to adjust the camera when the lens converter is on (the phase II versions of the converters talk to the camera so it adjusts automatically). I’m hoping to use it in the Adirondacks, so I am waiting to see whether it goes on back order after the introduction date. At some point, my used (but not too used) X00t will go up on E Bay.

 Boy o’ boy, May feels a long way off.

Like many photographers, I’ve used Photoshop software for many years.  I think the first version I owned was Photoshop 6. I’ve consistently upgraded version by version since that release.

This was necessary in part, because I am a raw file shooter, and as we all know, Photoshop does not perpetually update Camera Raw for all new models, unless you have purchased the newest version.

I’ve accepted this, like most other photographers as the cost of doing business.  And I recognize that Photoshop is an extremely powerful program, and I’m sure quite expensive to manage and update.  So the $180 I typically pay for an upgrade roughly every two years seems justified.

Now I have no issue with companies profiting from the intellectual property they have cultivated.  But Adobe’s latest moves have me befuddled.

As many people know, Adobe has decided to forgo further Photoshop version releases.  Instead Photoshop will be a program that you’ll license, and for its use pay a monthly fee .  This new system requires that the computer where the software resides, periodically check in with the mother company for confirmation that the user has paid his tithe to Adobe.  That monthly fee for basic access to Photoshop, (after a yearlong discount) will be roughly $20.00 a month, or obviously $ 240 a year.

So instead of $180 every two years, I will be paying $480 for the same time period.

Granted, one will have use of a constantly evolving software product, with access to the newest updates.

I could understand a modest price hike to perhaps $10.00 a month, or $240 every two years.  But the current pricing is seen by many (including myself) as rapacious.

In many ways it’s an in-your-face challenge to photographers.  I think this policy has the potential to create a enough resentment, that many former users will look for a work-around, either holding onto their current version of Photoshop for as long as possible, or investigating other software.

This is especially poignant to me, as the user of Fuji cameras, and particularly the X Trans imager, for which Photoshop and camera raw are not the premier raw converter.  This fact has prompted me to purchase alternative software for raw development.

There are other software packages available for photo editing including several that are free, but not nearly as powerful as Photoshop.  However not everyone needs such feature rich software.

My style of photography for instance is more involved with the capture of the image than aggressive postproduction work.  For the most part images that I publish or sell, have had a modest amount of massaging, mainly levels adjustment, perhaps color balance or saturation changes, and then sharpening.  I occasionally use the healing brush, to remove an inconveniently located power line, or a piece of debris.  I’m not particularly enamored of high dynamic range images which always look unnatural to me.

I’ve never thought of myself as a particularly clever Photoshop user.  And it looks like I may not get a lot better now.

For now,  the raw files I produce are covered by Photoshop CS 6.  Given the relatively crappy job, Photoshop and Camera Raw do with X Trans files, I have been getting comfortable using for instance, Capture 1 in its place.  Perhaps GIMP, the somewhat Photoshop-like freeware program will be a” work around”.  Even Photoshop “Elements” May be useful.

No product or service, no matter how good and how ubiquitous, is ever essential.

I think Adobe is about to find this out.

I am usually a late adopter.  If a new piece of equipment comes out, I’m cheap enough that I will generally wait until some time has elapsed and enough people have published their experiences with the equipment, before I make the purchase decision.

But when the Fujifilm X100s was introduced I was intrigued.  I love its predecessor, even for all its quirks, a few of which remain even after the latest firmware update. I have never enjoyed a piece of gear more, nor been more pleased with the images it produces. I sold my D 700, in part because the X100 replaced it for indoor event shooting.

I used the X100 all the time (for the year I owned it).  So when the update came out, I was not immediately interested.  But as I read reviews, I realized that this was a favorite camera now optimized.  I decided that rather than wait, I would place a preorder through B +H Photo.  They have a  strong return policy and I wasn’t worried that I’d be stuck with it if I were unimpressed.

It seemed to take forever for delivery, but my new camera finally arrived about three weeks ago. I’ve been shooting with it  ever since.

 

So far I’m extremely happy with the X100s.  I will have a more complete report once I have a chance to shoot in a few more environments.  I am particularly excited to try out something that is also possible with its predecessor, high shutter speed flash synchronization.

So far however I am enjoying the hell out of the X100s, so much so that I have listed my X100 on eBay (Item number:321117326639).

So bear with me.  It was the X100 that shook me out of my photography doldrums.  Testing the “S”, particularly as spring erupts here in The Pocono region of Pennsylvania is a pure joy.

Stay tuned, there’s more to come.

I am not a generally a wide angle shooter. When many years ago, I began to get serious about outdoor photography  I, like many other photographers just starting out, assumed that proper landscape photography was most appropriately done with short focal length lenses encompassing a wide field of view.

It seems to me this is a very common beginner’s mistake. I quickly found out that capturing scenes that are attractive to the naked eye using such lenses, often created a visually uninteresting, unfocused image. Too wide a field of view can leave an image without much of a focal point, with which to draw the viewer “into the picture”. Wide angle lenses also offer little magnification of distant objects, and can make a scene, for instance with a backdrop of mountains, appear uninteresting relative to the photographers own visual viewpoint.  Longer focal lengths work better for this.

But ” wide’s” have certain advantages.  They can make linear objects appear longer and more dramatic.  They do this in the same way they  deemphasize distant objects; by making the end of a fence line, or road appear further away.   They have better depth of field than longer lenses.  This can all be used to one’s advantage.

I have noticed over the years, that a lot of my truly wide-angle lenses like my Tokina 12-24 mm for DX, did not get much use. I seemed to gravitate into shooting mid-range and mild telephoto zooms and primes for landscape, which in my mind allows better isolation of the subject, and improves with prominence of the background  as well as the bokeh  of most of the photos I produce.

Nonetheless, when Fujifilm introduced its XF 14mm f2.8 R optic, I just sold some equipment, and had a little extra cash. Because of the affection I have for the system, and the excellent reviews of this lens,  I figured it would be reasonable to acquire one for myself, and perhaps reinvigorate my wide-angle photography.

I ordered one up from B&H in New York, and as it often is the case, it arrived on the next day.

The lens itself is fairly large. If anything it’s a bit larger than the XF 18-55 mm midrange zoom lens with which it shares its petal shaped sunshade . It has a detented aperture ring, a fairly broad focusing ring, and in a touch reminiscent of my Tokina glass, a slip clutch that allows a quick switch from auto focusing, to manual focusing.  It also has a focus distance scale embossed in the front of the lens.  It is the best finished of the XF primes that I own.

Like all the XF lenses, it feels extremely well-built, and balances nicely on my X Pro 1.

You can read the reviews. Pretty universally, the lens is thought to be quite sharp, pretty much edge to edge by f4. Also in different from other XF lenses, its native and distortion is very low, and there is little, if any correction required in software.  This is great for architecture, but sometimes leaves one wanting, if you’re looking for that slightly fish eyed perspective that can make some portraits and street shooting visually interesting.

I do not intuitively shoot with wide-angle lenses.  For me it is a challenge, but certainly a joyful one. Given the drab browns of early spring. I find myself looking for unusual patterns particularly in shadow and light, and opportunities to find color in the bland surroundings.

My copy of the lens seems as sharp as advertised.  Autofocus is slightly slow, but again you’re not going to use this lens for sports or action photography.  I think it is better specified for deliberate shooting.  Flare is extremely well controlled.

The time of my testing of the new lens, was coincidental with the availability of Camera Raw version 7.4, the final release. I had already played with the release candidate, and was eager to see whether the final version offered additional benefits.

I developed a number of X Pro 1 images, with Capture 1 Express, and then again with the newest version of ACR. I didn’t notice much difference between the release candidate, and the final version, but I agree that Adobe has clearly improved the raw file extraction since its earlier efforts, probably to a point where in most situations the differences between its capabilities, and those of competitive raw converters, are minimal.

Trust me, I spent a lot of time on the sharpening of both images. Still, particularly in looking at prints, I think for fine detail, looks more natural and dimensional in the Capture 1 (and the Fuji Raw File Converter) results.

Yeah, I know, the ACR image has a different color signature, than the one done on Capture 1.  Try as I might in ACR, I had a really difficult time duplicating the color balance on the second image which to me  were the colors that I was seeing at the time the image was shot.  I think this is an idiosyncratic situation, and not typically a problem for ACR.

You can be the judge, but to my eye, color aside, the second image looks much better,  slightly in terms of detail perhaps, but with significant improvements in micro contrast.  To me it just looks more real.  And it prints that way also.

All this aside, I think this additional lens, and the improving  options for raw file conversion are really great enhancements for the Fuji X interchangeable lens bodies.  I continue to love shooting with them.

Oh, and I’ve pre-ordered an X 100s.

It’s going to be a fun Spring.

Those of us who shoot the interchangeable lens Fuji cameras such as the X Pro 1, and XE 1, have had much to enjoy.

But as we discussed in an earlier posting, the novel configuration of the new Fuji sensor in these bodies, has apparently made it somewhat difficult for imaging software companies to come up with the appropriate software to translate the raw files into images, particularly given the potential of the sensor and the camera body.  Adobe in particular have struggled with this.  There has been two problems with Adobe Camera Raw, and Lightroom conversions of the Fuji files.  Number one there has been a smearing affect in areas of images, weather is for instance white lettering on a darker background.

There is also an obvious lack of detail in the Adobe conversions, relative to those done with Fuji’s bundled Silkypix-based conversion software, and Capture One 7, not to mention the in-camera raw conversions.

This week, Adobe made available a of quotes “release candidate”  raw conversion software for Photoshop and Lightroom that is said to among other things, address the weaknesses in  X Trans raw processing.  I wanted to see if it represented a significant improvement.

DPreview has done an evaluation of the new raw processing software.  Their images when compared to earlier raw conversions, do tend to suggest that the “smearing” problem has been somewhat successfully dealt with.  It did appear however on their images, that reproduction of fine detail may still be an issue.

To find out, I ran a picture of the hemlock trunk I’ve used in earlier articles through the newer Adobe converter and then compared it to images converted with other software.

I actually did additional sharpening, on the files converted with a newer Adobe plug in.

To my eye, at least on this image, the fine detail/watercolor issue continues to be a slight problem, though less so than before  (the differences are more pronounced when viewing the on uncompressed Tiff files).  Files converted with the Fuji Software, and Capture 1 version 7 continue to be  slightly superior in terms of apparent resolution but it’s closer than before.

But  then I converted some other image files I have recently taken with Capture One Express 7.0 and Adobe Camera Raw.  This particular  file which was fairly typical, I reconverted multiple times, to make sure I hadn’t made any mistakes.

 

Here’s the 100% images

To my eye, there remains a significant difference in detail retention with a strong advantage to Capture One (and believe me, I worked hard with the Adobe file).   Given this, I think Adobe still has a way to go.  For now I will  be using Capture One, or Fuji Raw File Converter, for detailed landscapes.

On a related note, Capture 1 has released version 7 of its Express Software which is less well featured on the pro version, but should still be useful for  the X Trans raw files.  I shall probably acquire that software as I do not require all of the capabilities of the more expensive version.

I suppose the good news here is that there are now several excellent choices for the conversion of Fuji X Trans raw files.  This would certainly be important to Fujifilm, who is about to come out with two more cameras (the X100s, and the X20) that use the same sensor technology.

Though Adobe conversions are still not optimal, they are improved and in many cases may now be adequate.

Man I hate progress. Just when you think you have the perfect camera body (or audio gear, or smartphone, or automobile); just when you think your little automotive or electronic universe is perfect, some snooty set of engineers, employed by a busybody manufacturer, goes ahead and makes an improved version of your toy.

You find yourself staring at the brochure (or more likely now the web page) for the new creation.  You breathlessly review the device’s new specifications and capabilities and just hoping that its ancestor, which you currently own, has not been made completely obsolete by the new arrival.

Unfortunately, the manufacturer has no desire to take you off the hook, or to give you any comfort in the knowledge that you currently possess a device that is still adequate to the task.  Their marketers want very badly to convince you that it is absolutely essential to sell your current device and possess their new offering which is so much more advanced, that you might as well not even own your current camera (or audio gear, or Smartphone, or automobile).

And it works.  One by one the pages of eBay sprout multiple new auction offerings of the old device, as their owners work to raise the capital so that they acquire the new model. And generally, it will be a model, that if you’re lucky, is perhaps 5% better overall than the device it replaced.

But when the UPS man finally arrives with your new toy, for you the consumer…no, the aficionado, your universe is complete. You’re back on top.

Now, we’re all I think, to some degree or another subject to these impulses.  You wouldn’t be reading this blog if you weren’t interested enough in camera gear and photography to waste a portion of your day perusing these articles.

And I wouldn’t be writing these articles if the subject didn’t interest me.  But it’s important to keep one’s head squarely on one’s shoulders.

Nikon has just released the D7100.  I’ve written extensively on its predecessor articles which you can read here and here.  I thoroughly enjoyed the D7000 and it will continue to hold a valuable place among my collection of camera gear.

The new camera has several interesting advances:

It sports a 24 megapixel Toshiba sensor, which  is similar to the 36 megapixel sensor of  the D800e in that it lacks a “low pass” filter.  It should thus have noticeably better resolution than the D7000, which has only 16 megapixels with a filter.  Nonetheless, the current resolution has proven to be very adequate for most of my needs ( the image above for instance, was significantly cropped).

Though more megapixels can be useful,  they  will be so only if they do not if adversely affect the low noise levels, and particularly the wide dynamic range of the current D7000 sensor. In fairness however, most often with Nikon sensors, the newer ones are strikingly better than their predecessors in most attributes.

The D7100 has a new autofocus system which is said to be more sensitive than the old one.  The autofocus points are also more broadly spread across the frame.  That’s a good thing.

There’s some improvement in burst speed, add a new crop factor (1.3x) which yields an image reduced to 15 megapixels, but allows you to access the camera’s highest burst speeds (seven fps in the crop mode, as opposed to six fps for the D 7000 in full resolution).

There are improvements to video capture including the addition of stereo microphones.

And like the D600, there is now a lock button on the mode dial.

To me, as a landscape photographer, the usefulness of upgrading to the D7100 would entirely depend on the sensors characteristics.  If the increase in resolution is accompanied by simultaneous dramatic improvements in high ISO performance (an achievement Nikon does tend to pull off) then the newer camera may be worth acquiring.  If the gains are in resolution alone, that I suspect I might acquire one when the market is right, i.e.; when the used market for the D7000 is still good, and the 7100 refurbs or discounts start to appear.  Time will tell.

Remember I own a D 600 which makes resisting this new offering much easier.

Obviously we need  fo people  to purchase goods, if we’re ever to improve the economy of our country, and for that matter, that of the globe.

But as always I urge caution when new models of our beloved equipment become available.

For unless they offer significant improvements in capabilities, specific to your usage patterns, then the newest model is unlikely to be a good investment.

Now, none of this applies to you if you own a much earlier camera body, particularly one that is a couple of steps below the 7000 series.  If you need what the D7100 offers, and can afford it, then by all means enjoy.  I believe you’ll be buying a fine photographic instrument.

However always remember that the addition of a new model does nothing to alter the quality and function of its predecessor.  I suspect we could all improve our output as much, by better utilizing the features of our current camera gear as by buying the newest model.

Take a deep breath and think, before you push that “confirm purchase” button on the screen.

Faithful readers of this site are aware of my affection for the Fuji X series cameras, both the X100 and the X Pro 1.

I think perhaps the one characteristic shared by both cameras is the very high quality lenses Fuji has designed for both devices. This includes the fixed 23 MM lens on the X100, and the three original prime lenses offered with the X Pro 1.  Still and all, there are times when a zoom lens is helpful, particularly in circumstances where “zooming with your feet” is impossible.  And although these cameras seem to have less propensity for motion blur then say, a digital SLR with the big moving mirror, it still an issue. It is particularly a problem when I use the cameras while hiking, when my vigorous cardiac contractions can cause camera shake.  With all this in mind, I was very eager to try the 18 -55 mm f2.8-4 image stabilized zoom lens Fuji announced with the X E1.  I was hopeful that the high quality of the prime “XF” lenses, would carry over to the new zoom.

I finally received word several weeks ago that the lens was in stock at B and H so I ordered one.  I’ve been shooting with it in a number of settings and would offer these observations.

Obviously this is less than a formal review.  There’ll be no resolution charts or other such technical data (I lack both the equipment and the inclination).

The lens arrived in the usual black Fuji packaging.  Included with the lens, is a scalloped lens hood and a pinch lens cap.  Unlike some of the prime lenses, the hood and lens cap function much like more conventional lenses (the hood can be reversed and stored on the lens).  The lens also comes with the familiar XF mount lens pouch which is larger than the lens, and closed by folding the end flap over itself (I’d really rather a drawstring).  Happily the build quality of the lens seems identical to the prime lenses.  The lens is mainly metal with very precisely machined ridges on the zoom and focus rings. Happily it is not much bigger than the 35 mm prime with its rectangular lens hood.

Unlike the prime lenses, the aperture ring has no markings and the aperture is determined by looking at the viewfinder, or rear LCD.  There is a separate switch which determines whether the aperture ring functions, or whether the aperture is set to automatic (allowing shutter priority shooting).  The movement of all the rings is very smooth.  I don’t use manual focus very much but the amount of travel required of the focus ring to go from near too far, seems fairly modest.  In my experience autofocus with this lens is fairly quick, perhaps roughly as good as the 35 mm.

One great feature of this lens is that it is image stabilized.  It’s always hard to know how well this feature works.  I become fairly adept at shooting the non-image stabilized Fuji lenses without much motion blur.  Reportedly the feature is good for keeping the image sharp for 3-4 stops of longer exposure.

This lens is really meant to be used with the electronic viewfinder.  At shorter focal lengths, the optical viewfinder can be useful, but as the lens is zoomed, the bright frame delineating the actual image, shrinks to a point where is roughly the size of the focus box, and thus essentially useless for framing.  I just keep the viewfinder set to electronic, which for me works fine.

I had the lens with me for a recent model shoot, and for a trip to the Adirondacks.  It is fairly fast (maximum aperture at 55 mm is f4.0).  For portrait work, I obviously used the long end of the zoom, but even with the slightly tighter aperture, background blur, I think was quite pleasing and the lens was very sharp.  I would have to say however, that the 60 mm f2.4 really shines in this setting.

The lens really comes into its own for landscape photography.  Fitted to the X Pro 1, the combination easily fits in my small Mountainsmith fanny pack.  Particularly in the middle of its focal range, the lens is fairly sharp corner-to-corner and quite contrasty, much like its prime brethren.

I was curious to compare the lens to a known standard.  Unfortunately the only lens that I have in the XF line within the zoom’s focal length range is the 35 mm f1.4 so I shot them against each other using my usual tabletop scene, both at f3.6.

These crops are taken from the periphery of the image, as I think the center image is fairly close between the two lenses in terms of sharpness.  I think you’d have to agree that the 35 mm is better at the periphery, hardly a surprise.  I would say however that the 18-55mm has many of the same positive attributes, of the 35mm, and 60 mm I already possess.

It will be tempting to leave it on the camera most of the time.

With this lens I have no burning desire to obtain the 18 mm prime lens.  The 14 mm f2.8 and the upcoming 23 mm however still interest me, and I will look to acquire them.

In summary, this is a really nice addition to the XF lens line.  It appears to continue the reputation of the Fuji lenses for great optical quality at a very reasonable price.  If I had to do over, I might have bought an XE 1 with this lens (which makes the lens an even better bargain) and then acquire the primes over time.

Adding it to my X Pro 1 has made the system a lot more versatile and fun.

In the last several months, I’ve had a fair number of changes to my equipment collection.

When I acquire something new, I like to write about it, whether it’s a “keeper” or not.  We’ve talked most recently on these pages about the Fuji X Pro 1. Given some new developments involving the technology surrounding that camera, there will be more to say.  Now however, I want to talk about a camera acquisition I also have alluded to recently, the Nikon D600.

I acquired this device shortly before the X Pro 1, and was shooting it extensively up to the point where the Fuji arrived.  As the Fuji was the older camera, I decided it would be more appropriate to  offer my comments on that camera first, as I was already late in the game.

Now, on to the D600.

The D600 is closely related to previous Nikon DSLR designs, particularly to the D7000.  Its body design follows a pattern seen in that “serious prosumer” camera bodies that Nikon has put out over the years.  Happily, the specifications keep improving with each generation, to a point where they have become very credible professional tools on their own; less robust perhaps than the D800 or D4, but more than adequate for fairly heavy use.  Now I am a somewhat leisurely landscape photographer, who will not be climbing in the Himalayas, or repelling off some cliff in the Amazon Basin. For me, these cameras are a nice combination of ruggedness, yet with reasonable weight.

Perhaps the most important new feature on the body of the D600 is a locking button on the mode dial on the left upper top.  This eliminates one of my main objections to that control style, vs. the three or four button knob  in that location on the D700/800/D4 bodies.   Every so often I will shoot with for instance, my D7000, only to find the mode dial has moved either to “program”, or to full manual; the latter setting particularly screwing up the exposure.  With the D600, this should no longer happen.

There also some changes to the video controls on the camera, which are admittedly less interesting to me.  When compared to the D7000, the D600 body is “puffed up” by about 10% visually.  All of the good things about the earlier camera have been retained (and I really enjoy that earlier camera).

There are certainly some wonderful websites such as DPreview, where you can read an in-depth description of the camera functions, and menus.  As always, I hope to convey to you the experiences of an “average” user and how the cameras features impact my photography.

I have had a somewhat jaded approach to this camera.  I admit being somewhat thrilled, but slightly intimidated, by the quality the sensor and its high-resolution.  I’ve discussed here before that I have a less than robust collection of FX appropriate lenses.  Other than some prime lenses, I own a 17-35 mm, f2.8, as well as the 70-200 mm f2.8.  My best midrange zoom seemed to be a Tokina 28-80 ATX f2.8, which has not always been well reviewed but I always thought was quite sharp, at least on DX.  I began to consider purchase of some serious glass, perhaps starting with the Nikkor 24 -70 mm F2.8.  I looked through my lens collection to see what I wasn’t using, and could sell to fund this expensive purchase.  The Tokina seemed a likely candidate for a quick eBay sale and I began to look for the box and packing materials.

But then it occurred to me that just maybe, I ought to consider shooting the D600 with the Tokina lens.

This particular lens, out of production now, is roughly as massive and heavy as the legendary Nikkor 28-70 mm F2 .8.  The lens is beautifully finished with a black crinkle surface.  Over the years its weight and size have tended to relegated to my storage closet as I have many DX lenses that seemed as sharp… and were a lot lighter.  Nonetheless, I figured I ought to at least give it a try before selling it.  I mounted the lens on the D600 and went hiking (with a tripod) in nearby Nescopeck State Park.

All I can say is wow!  To my eye, this is a very fine FX lens, and is extraordinarily well matched to the 24-megapixel Nikon sensor.  Contrast and detail are outstanding even at the edges of the frame.  I say this, even after shooting the extraordinary 60 mm Fuji “X” lens.  I’m not it selling it now.

I shot the 17-35 mm lens which is certainly excellent, though not quite so clear edge to edge.  It’s still a wonderful optic, and to me it should certainly not be discarded on acquisition of the D600/800.  The 70 – 200 mm VR lens (the first version) also to my eye looks fine, very sharp in the center and only slightly less so at the edges. Generally with a zoom of that range, I don’t care about the little vingnetting described by reviewers (which is easily corrected on processing), or whether the corners are absolutely sharp (version 2 of that lens is said to be better optimized for FX).  For now I see no reason to upgrade to the newer version.  That having been said, the main problem with all of these lenses is that they are seriously large and bulky.  You’ll need a serious backpack to carry good FX glass, plus a tripod for great remote landscape photography.

There is another option. With the Nikon primes I own, the D 600 is wonderful.  Shooting for instance with one of the excellent 50 mm Nikkors, is a delight.  A handful of primes would seriously reduce what you would carry on your back.

I did acquire with a camera the “kit lens” the Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR lens.  This is in fact a fairly reasonably sized midrange zoom with image stabilization.  I’m not a lens snob, and I’d hoped this lens would be similar to the 16 – 85 mm VR DX glass, which is essentially parked on my D7000 and is quite sharp and contrasty.  Unfortunately at least my copy of the lens was lackluster at best, and I returned it. Interestingly, the little Nikkor 28-70 f3.5 I wrote about here, looks better to my eye on the D 600, than the newer lens.

I shot some comparison photos as is de rigueur for these camera tests.  I shot my usual test subjects with the D700, the D600, both with a Nikkor 50 mm f1 .8, and compared them to the X Pro 1 with its 35 mm f1 .4, (which on DX has nearly the same field of view)both at F 5.6.  For the record, I developed them using the same raw developer (which currently cannot currently be named) which is said to be the best developer in particular for the Fuji files and also great for Nikons.  I did not always use standard settings, but attempted to best optimize each image.

Here’s 100% crop of images I shot at ISO 320 on the X Pro 1 and the D 600

Here’s a set at ISO 3200, including shots from the D 700:

In either the low or high ISO images, I think it’s clear that the Nikon has an advantage in resolution.

I think the high ISO noise rankings (higher is better) would be D 600 > X Pro 1 > D 700.

I’m impressed with the Fuji.  The difference in resolution between it and the Nikon seems clearly less than the eight megapixels the sensor sizes would suggest.  This is probably the cause of the removal of the anti-aliasing filter on Fuji.  Again, I think the high ISO images suggest that the D600 is better than the Fuji, which is slightly better than the D700.  That camera, even allowing for the different image magnification of its smaller files at 100%, clearly has less resolution, and noise suppression than the other two.  It’s amazing how good these imagers are getting.

I’m actually rather impressed that the Fuji does not lose ground to the Nikon D600 as the ISO numbers increase.  The newer Nikon in my mind however, is a clear winner here.

I should also mention that in playing with the files, the dynamic range of the camera seems very high.  This camera appears to have some of the same abilities to lift the shadows as its older sibling the D7000.  It also does a very nice job at highlight detail retention.  In this regard it feels almost like my old Fuji S5 pro.  On a raw image, you can dial back what appears to be a blown out sky or snowfield, and find that there is significant detail available.

One issue with this camera has to do with the autofocus.  There been reports that the performance of the autofocus on this camera is mediocre, compared to cameras higher up in the Nikon line.  To me the autofocus always functioned well, but my main frustration was the rather restricted area of autofocus points in the viewfinder.  This is very frustrating for landscaping.  It can be very difficult to bring a focus point for instance on a spot in the periphery of the image.  Then I realized that a simple solution for this is to move to “live view” while, particularly on a tripod, which brings to bear the camera’s very adequate contrast detection autofocus system which can cover the entire frame.  Problem largely solved.

One other issue I think deserves discussion.  Some very thoughtful photographers have written about the importance of using careful shot discipline, if we’re to extract all of the high-resolution of these devices.  As the megapixels increase, it seems logical that we may increasingly rely on camera stabilization devices, whether physical or electronic, in order to prevent motion blur.  The larger mirrors in the full-frame digital SLRs such as the D600 can cause issues with camera motion when they swing up and out-of-the-way on shutter activation.

Also with FX Nikon cameras is that the few image stabilized lenses available tend to be rather large and not particularly fun to carry around ( excepting the little  Nikkor 28-70).I did do some free hand shooting with the D 600 and noted that it was fairly difficult at times, to prevent motion blur, unless one used at least a monopod. Now I don’t shoot thousands of frames every day, and there are pro shooters who are so steady, and have such good technique, that this may not be a problem for them.  For me however, I need to be careful.

For these reasons, I believe that mirrorless devices such as G series Panasonics, and the Fuji X cameras, which are smaller than full-frame DSLRs and offer lenses with image stabilization, will likely be my choice for free-hand shooting.    I find, for instance, that the mirrorless cameras are much more forgiving in this setting.  I get much less motion blur with even the non-stabilized 60 mm lens (90 mm equivalent) on the X Pro 1 then I do with shorter lenses on the D 600.

At any rate, that Nikon D600 is a wonderful camera and will add significantly to most shooters capabilities, both out in the woods, on the street, and in challenging low light situations.  For me the camera’s weatherproofing makes it a natural choice for use when it’s raining and snowing, and its small size and lightweight but sturdy build make it a good companion out in the wilds.  The only disadvantage of the FX format is the need for larger lenses, and some sort of camera stabilization.

When you comply with its needs however, the results are wonderful.

This is an editorial of mine published in a local daily, The Wilkes Barre Times Leader on Sunday May 13, 2012. It is here in all its unedited glory.

 

Every spring around Earth Day, my family and I join a group of my neighbors on a Saturday morning to perform “roadside cleanup” along a stretch of highway that runs near our community in Mountaintop. 

We’ve been doing this for roughly 15 years. 

Because we’re creatures of habit, I suspect that each of us gravitate towards one particular section of road that we call our own.  I generally end up policing a roughly 200 yards section that runs along a fairly isolated part of the route. It’s a spot I suspect that people, knowing that they are unobserved, feel emboldened to toss all manner of garbage out of their vehicle windows and onto the surrounding landscape.

 Because of this, over the years I’ve noted several patterns involved in littering and dumping that make me somewhat cynical about my fellow-man.

Some things I guess are just ingrained in you.  I cannot imagine throwing anything out of a car window, or failing to comment negatively if a fellow occupant did.  Yet judging from the volume of roadside debris that I encounter each year, there are many others among us that feel no such restraint.

The piles of debris along our roadsides are sadly, too me, another indictment of this region’s people and their attitudes, in some ways as damning as those being handed down in our Federal courtrooms.  Travel for instance, to State College, the Hershey area, or out to Western Pennsylvania and the amount of roadside trash vastly decreases or just disappears. .  I honestly do not know whether this is because of more vigorous cleanup efforts occurring elsewhere in the state but I doubt it.  People in those regions I think, just aren’t as callous about their surroundings as we are.

 Over the years I have decided that there are three main categories to categorize those that litter our roadsides.

The first group is those who dispose of random objects tossed at the point on the drive when the food or beverage it contained is either consumed or no longer desired.  In an unscientific sampling from this year’s cleanup I would say the most popular item to toss is a coffee cup, followed closely by empty beer cans, generally brands that are so cheap, I haven’t even heard of them( malt liquors cans are very common).  You rarely see an empty Stella Artois, or a Magic Hat bottle alongside the road.  Not to be a snob, but I think this says something sociologically about people who throw their crap out on our roads.

I did find a lot of energy drinks this year, particularly the Monster brand of beverage so popular among the youths.  This does not bode well for the future. 

A new item in the last several years is quarter full bottles of water and sport drinks. This also discourages me.  It suggests that even people intelligent enough to be at least, mildly health, conscious, still think it’s OK to toss trash out of their car.  They are at least intelligent enough to leave some liquid in the container so that it can be lobbed reliably from their car to the surrounding woodlands.

I did find less this year of what was once a common phenomenon, the quart plastic iced tea bottle, filled with human urine.  This was certainly a welcome development.

Then there are the serial litterers.  For many years, in one 100 foot stretch of my assigned roadside I would find perhaps 40 of the same size coffee cups, of varying stages of decay, bought at a vendor whose closest store is in Wilkes Barre. One could easily imagine this thoughtless individual finishing the beverage in roughly the same place, every day on their way to work, and then adding the empty cup to our local landscape.   

This year, there was no such pattern.  It makes me wonder whether the closure of the nearby CertainTeed fiberglass plant recently, means that my coffee-drinking nemesis has lost their employment and no longer needs to travel that stretch of road.  Perhaps the plant closure also explains the loss of the urine bombs, said to be the spoor of over-the-road truck drivers. 

The last and most egregious group of litterers is the dumpers, who think our roadside is an appropriate place for their unwanted household garbage. I suspect that one reason that this problem exists here is for lack of municipal dumps, which elsewhere in the country, give people a place, maintained by their taxes, to discard unwanted items. We commonly find plastic bags full of family detritus, along with old tires, furniture, and inoperable electronic devices. This year, we found the carcass of someone’s dog in a plastic bag sentimentally discarded among the Mc Donald’s bags and Power Aid bottles.

“…Mommy, where’s Fido?”

At least some people have the courtesy to save their garbage until after our cleanup, placing their bags next to ours to await pickup.

So for several days at least, our stretch of road will be fairly neat and tidy. The white garbage bags will be collected, leaving only the emerging greenery of spring. In about a week as I drive past, the glint of a fresh beer can (or a fresh case of beer cans) along the road will once again catch my eye.

Thus is the cycle of life in Northeastern Pennsylvania.