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.

It’s been a lean summer photographically. As fall
approaches, my folder of good summer images is painfully thin.

I suspect my lack of production this season has multiple
factors. One would be the professional distractions mentioned in the article
below. Having a lot on one’s mind, with the stress that goes along with it, can
definitely dampen the creative drive.

I also think that I’ve developed a bit of photographic
fatigue. Though I have traveled a bit this summer, for the most part I  have work, and thus have to and stay close to home, driving though the same places I have been through before.

Often, I will see an interesting scene and then realized that I already have an image of it in my archives somewhere.

Sometimes it is worthwhile reshooting the scene if light is
better, or to acquire it with a higher quality imager, but that can seem tedious
relative to finding a novel subject for capture.

As I get older, I have become more discriminating. For
better or for worse, I am more selective on when I trip the shutter. I think I
have a better sense of “what works” in terms of good landscapes. I pass on
scenes I might have shot in the past.

Another issue is the loss of scenery caused by development.
On of my favorite local areas to shoot is the Butler Township-Conygyham Valley region of Pennsylvania, outside of city of Hazleton. I have a branch
office in the area; on a Monday afternoon after office hours, I like to drive
around, looking for scenic spots.

Problem is, that over the past 10 years, so many if the farms have succumbed to development, that the former scenic vistas are now cluttered with new houses. I have many images that would be nice to reshoot, but it is now impossible because the “view shed” has been corrupted.

Finally I think that believe that a portion of my decreased output
can be blamed on White Nose Disease.

Yes – I’m talking about the fungal infection responsible for
a huge decline in the Northeastern U.S. bat population.

At Nescopeck State Park, for instance where I often
hike, there is a large “bat house” erected in the park above an informational
display about the little winged creatures. In summers past, standing
underneath, one could hear the scratching and the cries of parent bats and
their pups, and note the telltale splashes of guano on the ground below. Not now, as the house is silent, the grass, unstained.

Now, I do a lot of shooting while hiking. The loss of the bats, combined with a wet spring and summer means that the flying insect population has seriously increased. I rarely had a problem with Mosquitoes before. Now when I stop walking to photograph something, I am swarmed upon by hundred of the pesky critters.

Forget carrying a tripod, you’d be bled dry before you could set it up. The best I could manage during this season have been a few “grab shots” before being assaulted and forced to start moving again.

I miss bats. I rarely see one anymore. Interestingly we had
one in the house several weeks ago which we gently caught and released into the night. Hopefully he or she is resistant to the fungus, hungry… and prolific.

Hopefully the onset of autumn will rekindle my enthusiasm a
bit.

Maybe I need to challenge myself, for instance limiting my
photography perhaps to a single focal length, subject, or theme.

Or, I need to buy some better insect repellent.

Last Sunday, I found myself on a drive in the farmland between White Haven, and the town of Weatherly, near my home in Pennsylvania. This is a rural area, and I was hoping to find scenes featuring the rapidly melting snow, hopefully contrasting with subtle signs of spring.

Once I reached Weatherly, I drove to the area near Black creek, where there exists an old railroad yard with a roundhouse and foundry, used to build and repair steam locomotives.

From signs on the site,  could see that there was an effort underway to restore and preserve these venerable structures. From what I could see of the buildings current condition, this would be a formidable undertaking to say the least.

The largest building was open, so I thought I’d explore. I grabbed my D 7000, mounted the only “fast” lens I had with me (a 35mm f 2.0 Nikkor) and my  monopod, and entered the structure.

The building was huge, largely empty, but still there were artifacts of the past scattered about. A huge press, undoubtedly too big to move, sat near one of the huge doors.

The cantilevered roof had collapsed in the center and water from melting snow cascaded over the huge support beams and showered the center of the interior. I began to shoot, mildly concerned about the potential for falling debris.

I realized that this would be a good opportunity to test the dynamic range of the D-7000.

As an owner of a Fuji S-5 I am spoiled.  This camera has an extraordinary ability to record a wide range of brightness in a single shot. The D 7000 however, is supposed to be even better.

To take advantage of this attribute you have to shoot each camera differently.

With the S-5, one exposes to the left; or in other words, one sets the exposure so that the darkest regions are reasonably exposed , but leaves the highlights be just a bit “burned out”. Given the dual-pixel design of the Fuji sensor, you can “pull back the highlights in Photoshop, and still find detail.

With the D 7000 the exposure is set in the time-honored method of exposing to the right, setting the camera so that  the brightest part of the scene is well exposed, but the darkest areas look black.

In Photoshop, one can then use the “brightness” and “fill light” sliders (working as always, in RAW) to bring up the dark portions of the image.

The problem usually is, that when one “pushes” the dark areas, you usually end up with noise, which limits what you can do.

With the D 7000 however, you seem to be able to push hard on the dark areas without creating the luminance and color noise that plagued earlier designs. I’m not sure why the lower-noise Fx Nikons wouldn’t be even better for this, but apparently they’re not (except at higher ISOs).

On the image above, there was some snow at the threshold of the door that I couldn’t help overexposing.

Here’s one more shot, from a different vantage point.

All in all, I am rather impressed with this little DSLR.

Anybody want to buy an S-5? (They still shoot the best wedding Jpgs around.)

 

Pennsylvania Winter Farm (Nikon D7000, Nikkor 16-85mm f3.5)

 

Occasionally, a budding photographer will approach me for advice on how to capture better images.

I think that my answer must disappoint them. I’m sure most beginners really hope that I can direct them towards the purchase of a particularly sexy piece of gear, such as a camera body, or a particular lens that will set their photography afire.

They want to talk about gear. I want to talk about composition, and technique. Particularly, I want to talk about rather mundane basics such as the nature of optics, shooting discipine, and camera, and lens support.

Not that there aren’t some great photographs blurred by subject motion, or camera movements.

Most great images are sharp, even if it is at a narrow point of focus selected by the shooter.

 Generally, for an image to be sharp, the camera and lens need to be still relative to the subject, as the shutter is released.

Now, there are many ways to properly stabilize a camera.

My first rule would be: the human body unaided, is at best, only a fair camera support.  Now true enough, a practiced pro shooter can hand-hold, and certainly achieve great results, usually far better  than an amateur. There are reasons for this. First, the pro is practiced at taking still images, much in the way a fine marksman, can draw a bead and hold very steadily on his target. It takes concentration and lots of repetition. There are places to learn this: here, and here.

 Most amateurs have lousy technique. They think that they can hold a camera, arms akimbo, far out from the body, trying to shoot a telephoto shot through a slow zoom lens, at an impossibly slow shutter speed, and still achieve Sports Illustrated quality shots of their precious soccer-playing offspring. It doesn’t work that way.

A pro understands that the proper shooting technique is to hold the arms close in to the body elbows braced against the chest or abdomen, and the viewfinder pressed against the face. Holding as modern digital camera out away from you while you frame with the viewfinder, is generally going to lead to fair snapshots, but lousy fine art prints.

Also, often pro camera gear, is heavier. This means that the poke of the finger on the shutter, and the movement of the mirror and shutter, on an SLR, is working against the greater mass of, for instance,  a heavy, metal-bodied  camera such as a Canon 1Ds mark II, rather than a diminutive plastic consumer grade Digital Rebel. It thus creates less blur-inducing movement.

 Most landscape purists use tripods… period. Many shoot large-format cameras that are too unwieldy to be practical for anything but tripod mounting.  The true purist would use, very heavy tripods with equally beefy camera mounts that add mass to the camera body and couple it rigidly to the floor or ground, essentially eliminating camera movement.

Tripods are great for detailed images. They are less useful when for hiking long distances, for discreet shooting and sometimes, for spontaneity.

 Obviously, there are available, stabilized lenses, known as IS lenses for Canon,OIS for Panasonic, and VR lenses for Nikkor. These can partially make up for camera shake. Modern Sony, Olympus, and Pentax SLR lenses are generally stabilized by the camera body itself. Whether in the lens or body, stabilization is a useful feature, but can only be counted on to compensate for modest camera movements at reasonably fast shutter speeds.

Combining a heavy tripod with a remote shutter release (or releasing the shutter by using the camera self timer) is still the best way to obtain sharp, enlargable landscape prints.  This is especially true when shooting moving water, or in low light situations.  We should probably all do this, all the time.

In fact, good technique and less megapixels, will sometimes trump bad technique with more megapixels in terms of fine detail reproduction.

I have walked, snowshoed, and skied many miles with a tripods strapped to my pack. In a target-rich photographic environment, I sometimes leave the body and lens attached to the tripod, and travel with the combination over my shoulder, much like the way Huck Finn would carry a fishin’ pole.

 Lately though, I have changed tactics.  I found that sometimes setting up all the gear to work as a purist means that there are shots you won’t take because, it’s too much trouble. I still do use a tripod on formal shooting days. But for more casual opportunities, or for situations where I think that the neighbors will react badly to my presence, I use other techniques.

Cross-country skiing is one example. I have two ski poles in hand, and often, no where convenient to carry a monopod. I will then have to improvise.

Holding crossed ski (or hiking) poles with my thumb and third to fifth finger, I can improvise a bipod with the pair. My index finger can then encircle the barrel of the lens which rests in the cross. This works pretty well.

Trees when well located can be used to stabilize things, either by leaning against them, or bracing the camera hard against the bark. A small sandbag in your bag is helpful to facilitate the latter.

Any firm stable object can be useful. Fence post and bridge rails make fine camera supports. With SLRs, it is useful to press the camera into the support, to damp the movement of the mirror. Again a sandbag is useful to position the camera on a hard surface.

Logs, the hood of your car, your mountain bike seat, even rocks in the middle of a stream, can offer a shooting platform, as well as a non-intuitive, but unique shooting viewpoint. The Panasonic G 1-G1h- G2h-series cameras are great for this as they have an articulating view screen for framing at weird angles, are physically small, and have no mirror, and thus no “mirror slap” to dampen.

Finally, most often lately, I use a monopod.  Mine is a steel Bogen-Manfrotto unit with a sturdy ballhead mounted, a ballhead similar to, if less robust than the one on my good Gitzo tripod. Both ballheads use the same camera shoe so that I can switch back quickly between support options.

The monopod is a solid, heavy steel unit. The weight is an advantage when mechanically coupled to the camera, and then to the ground. There is a rubber foot, which can be slipped off to reveal a metal spike.

It makes a robust hiking pole. I keep it in my car wedged between the passenger seat and the console where it is readily available for “grab shots”. I have also suspected it would make a formidable self-defense weapon.

For landscape photography, I extend the monopod to the length I need. I make sure all of the joints are tightly locked. I position the camera with the ball head and then lock it down tight. I find that placing some weight on the camera-monopod assembly and making sure it if firmly engaged with the ground before tripping the shutter, allows me to take very sharp images even at marginal shutter speeds. I can grab good shots very quickly with a monopod in situations where a tripod would be slow and cumbersome.

If you aspire to create photographic images beyond the average, you need to spend time learning the basics. 

These methods may seem tedious and even stifling. Always remember that good camera technique and save you from opening your compositional masterwork, the one you hiked hours to capture, only to find is a blurred, unprintable mess.

Take the time and trouble.

It’s worth it.

 

 I don’t really write camera equipment reviews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that they will be enjoyable.

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

November Evening Corn ( Panasonic G1, Lumix 14-45mm f3.5)

 

The leaves have mostly fallen. The forests, viewed from afar now reflect the grey of  tree bark, the light tan of beech leaves, which will stay on the trees till spring, and dull brown of spent foliage on the forest floor. 

At first glance, late fall in the Northeastern U.S. offer slim pickings for landscape photography.

After the blazing colors of mid fall, which occur in mid-October in the mountains of eastern Pennsylvania, Late October, and November can be an imaging challenge.  I’m the photographer for a calendar we publish every year. Shooting November’s image is a definitely feels more difficult than for other months (except perhaps March, and August).

The transition from autumn splendor to the dull scenery of late fall can occur fairly quickly. One good windy storm after “peak leaves” occur, and suddenly the colorful forest canopy is gone.  What had been a “target rich” photographic environment can vanish overnight.

 Still and all in some ways, I like the late season.  You need to be observant to be successful. You can’t always rely on the cheap thrill of iridescent sugar maples and crimson oaks.  No more cheerful outdoor scenes with people happily playing touch football, because in November, it’s getting cold, and the people are all inside watching football. To be effective and compelling, late fall photography needs to focus on subtle things.

Contrast is a wonderful theme for this season. If you look hard enough (and know where to look) there will always be residual color, even into the early winter.

First, in cool dry air of fall, sunsets become more spectacular even as the foliage fades.

 In our area, some maples and oaks delay their fall color, and hold their leaves until later in the year. Tamaracks can have brilliant yellows late in the year.  Shrubs such as Blueberry and Hawthorne retain their brilliant reds long after the main foliage has disappeared. One strategy is to find these stragglers, and feature their beauty in a way that juxtaposes it against the dull post-foliage background. Longer focal lengths and wider apertures can be useful to help isolate these small remaining patches of interest, and blur the background.

It’s helpful if your images depict a seasonal tradition, and hopefully for the audience, a pleasant memory. Scenes involving holidays are an obvious possibility.

  In our part of Pennsylvania, hunting, particularly deer hunting, is a deep-seated passion, and for many evokes strong memories of fellowship and traditions enjoyed in late autumn. I often rove the on the day before “buck season” to scout for interesting scenes among the hunting towns in the “Endless Mountains” region to the north of my home.

 Another opportunity involves the transition between seasons, and the scenes at the cusp can be worth recording. The first frost, a late fall dusting of snow,  the first freeze up of a forest pond, or an unexpected ice storm, offer opportunities to the alert photographer.

As always, good landscape images should tell a story, in this case of a natural world that is “battening down” to endure the cold months to come.

I believe, that the care and imagination one needs to find beauty in relatively bleak periods during the year, can make us cleverer photographers when seasons cooperate.

 

Red and Orange (Panasonic GH1, Lumix 20mm f 1.7)

 

On a day off, especially if I am awakening in the morning during a photogenic season, or in a scenic place, I have to make a decision.

Do I get up, grab my photo gear and go out early, or do I “sleep in”. This is a decision that I usually make based on the weather.

If it’s cloudy, I stay in bed, knowing that the same shooting conditions that I would encounter at 6 AM will exist at 11. I can sleep a bit, have breakfast and coffee, and still get good light.

If it’s clear, I think about it. You have to get up very early, arguably before sunrise, to catch the very best light. If I can look out the window and can already see that it’s clear, I probably already missed the best shooting. Have to wait until sunset.

If it’s foggy however, particularly if there’s no rain, I’m up instantly. For fogs, or mists, in many ways and in their many forms provide a wonderful backdrop for landscape photography.

Landscape photographers need to try to understand the weather. It’s helpful to anticipate the atmosphere’s behavior in order to be present for the best shooting conditions. I’m not a meteorologist, but I know a few things:

I know that in the fall of the year, when a cold front passes after a period of warmth, fog will form in valleys, particularly in river valleys, while the surrounding ridges will be clear. The amount of fog will depend on the “dew point” of the atmosphere.

I know that a similar phenomenon occurs anytime cool moist air passes over warmer surfaces.

I know that it is not unlikely to have fog, when there is an ice storm in the winter.

I know that fog will occur at times I cannot predict.

Fog is like free bokeh (see definition here) provided by the atmosphere. When it is thin, it blurs and deemphasizes the background detail, focusing one’s attention on the subject.

When it is thick, it can transform the commonplace into the abstract. It can change a pedestrian scene, into a more magical vision.

It helps to have equipment that is relatively moisture resistant. Don’t underestimate the pernicious effect  of water vapor on electronics. Don’t bring warm cameras out into cool moist environments. If you do, water will condense onto the electronics, and lenses will fog. At the least, it helps to have a lens cloth available.  

Better yet, let the equipment equalize to the ambient temperature (I usually leave my gear overnight in a place where that can happen). Typically then, there will be few issues.

Every once in a while, Mother Nature helps us with our craft.

Take advantage of it.

October 18, 2010

Alright , I admit it. I screwed up A number of our readers pointed out that the real danger of condensation on camera lenses, and in camera bodies occurs when cold equipment is brought into warm environments. Bang, you got me. In my own defense however, I would say that I was trying to warn my gentle readers about the perils of using electronic equipment, in ultra-humid environments.

I am greatful that people are paying attention.

 I hope you’ll continue.

 

 

Daffodil and Motorcycle

  As I have mentioned before in this space, the camera bodies that I utilize include the Nikon F-Mount system cameras. I have always preferred the ergonomics of the Nikon based cameras to their Canon counterparts. For me, these digital bodies, in particular, the professional level models have the best user interfaces on the market.

    This is all personal preference: Canon, Pentax, Sony, and Olympus all make systems with compelling features and good quality imaging chips, and I have used many of them in the past.

  Among the cameras made with the Nikon F-Mount, were cameras made by Fujifilm. I have always thought that there is something special about imagers designed by film manufacturers (Kodak makes imagers also, now used in high-end digital backs). The Fuji that I use is an S5,  a modified Nikon D200, with Fuji firmware and a unique sensor that gives it a wide dynamic range.

   Originally designed for the wedding industry to capture the bright whites, and dark tones in the attire of a typical bride and groom, it work very well for landscape situations where the light range is broad, or the color is particularly intense. The sensor has two sizes of photodiodes for a total of 12 million pixels arranged as a honeycomb.

   There are 6 million larger pixels that are responsible for most of the imaging duties. The addition 6 million small pixels are utilized to allow the camera to record very bright whites. They are set at a lower gain than the large pixels and thus don’t burn out with very bright scenes. The sensor layout increases the apparent resolution of the camera from the expected 6 Mp to more like 8-10 MP still lower than the resolution of many current DSLRs. Even so, I have printed images from my S5 as large as 20”x 30” which were happily accepted by professional art buyers without complaint.

  The camera has a small but dedicated following, who believe as do, I that the images produced by the Fuji have a unique tonality, and film-like quality, unlike other competitive products, in large part because of the unique sensor design.

   Fujifilm has not announced a successor to this camera. The dream of Fuji aficionados would be a true 12 MP (12 million small pixels, 12 million large pixels) full frame body built on the D-700 chassis. In the mean time, I’ll keep using the S5.