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.

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.

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stand by. I’ll have more in a bit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the second part of this review, Click here.

A Pretty Good Little Lens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can only presume that either:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m still gonna need better lenses.

I am not a particularly good businessperson.

I run a solo medical practice which in these days is folly by definition. I do photography, and sell images off and on. I write a blog for free.

What I’m trying to say, is that I may not be the best person to criticize an iconic leader in photographic imaging like Nikon, in their business decisions.

But…. the web has created a forum for ill-informed and under-qualified people to comment on topics where they are out of their depth.

So here I go.

Nikon has introduced the long rumored 36mp FX format D 800. It is considered to be the replacement or upgrade for the for the 12 mp FX d700, still a favorite among working pros for its modest size and weight, robust body and weather sealing, great  image quality, and wonderful low light capability. It‘s slightly crippled by what is now thought to be a limited frame rate of 4/second.  The D800 will sell for around US$ 3000.  As a landscape photographer, I may well buy one.

The physics of the D 800 sensor (pixel pitch) suggests that it will perform similarly to my DX format, prosumer D 7000. This is no bad thing, as I am rather happy with the files from that imager. The older D700 however has superior low light capability, overall cleaner images (megapixels aren’t everything) and more than sufficient resolution for most uses. Want to print  20″x 30″… not usually a problem.

Addendum: newer samples posted on the web suggest that the D800 high ISO capabilities may be equal to or at least approach the D700.  If so, wow!

What I don’t understand is the logic of Nikon’s current model lineup.

The flagship Nikon supposedly is still the D3x, which at US$8000 and 24 mp, has 33% lower pixel count,  roughly the same high ISO capability as the D800 (or maybe inferior) and is $5000 more expensive. The D3x has some advantages, such as a somewhat more robust build, vertical shooting position, and a longer shutter life, but the advantages don’t seem like enough to justify the price differential.

Announced right before the D 800, the D4 is a US$6000 FX 16MP rapid fire (11 frames per second) high-end body pro camera body (similar build to the D3x), which we assume will be very strong also in low light situations. It’s aimed at sport photogs and photojournalists.

It has a new and very capable autofocus system (but the same as the D800). It has outstanding video features, which are also essentially identical to its significantly cheaper, higher-resolution and newer “brother

I “get” the concept of the D4. Resolution beyond a certain point isn’t that important, but for shooting sports, speed and autofocus is everything.  The D800 frame rate is significantly slower.

I think of all the bodies in the Nikon lineup, the D4 is best tailored to for its intended use.

So why make the D800 36 MP? Why did they not recycle the D3x sensor, perhaps improved, but in the smaller body form of the D700 ( something like they did with the  D3 and the subsequent D700), and save the 36MP sensor for a D4x? Who will buy D3x now? And just how many megapixels can we jam into an FX-sized chip before negatively impacting the file quality?

I do hope they will continue to produce a D700, or a similar body well into the future. May be there could be a D700s with the D4’s sensor.

It is also worth considering that such high-resolution sensors require very high quality lenses, and very disciplined shooting techniques to exploit their full potential. This may be why Nikon realizes that the D4, the true working photographer’s camera, will be just fine with half the D 800’s megapixels.

The good news is that Nikon just put their highest resolution sensor, in a body I can probably afford. The bad news is that I may need to invest in even better lenses than I own, to make it work.

I might just rather have access to the D4 imager, at an even lower price.

I can do a lot with 16 million really clean pixels.

I have an image on my den wall of a rhodora bloom.

It is a flower that grows in the scrub oak barrens adjacent to my community here in Northeastern Pennsylvania. I have been told by naturalists that this is an anomaly, because it’s only supposed to exist much further north.

I shot that image with a 4 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 4500, which some of you may recall, was the final high-end iteration of the original twist body Coolpix. I have printed it at 8”x11” and larger, and love the image. It looks good to me even 7 years after it spit out of the Epson 2200 that I used in those days. And I have become very critical of images over the years.

Now I have owned a large number of compact and bridge cameras over the years. I printed and enjoyed many landscape images captured with non DSLRs in years past. Nowadays, I am somewhat unhappy with using a compact camera for this purpose, even the so-called “premium” compacts such as my Panasonic LX 5. I get many less images nowadays from small imager cameras that I would consider using, let’s say, in an exhibition, whereas in the past, I have used such cameras to confidently decorate gallery walls (and make sales).

Given some discussions I have been involved in various photographic forums, I have begun to wonder just how much better off we are , in terms of small-sensored cameras, than we were in the earlier period in the digital photography, when there were less pixels on small sensors than now.

I shot over the years with many “bridge” cameras in those days, sometimes side-by-side with DSLRs in the 6 MP range. My memory is, that whether it was a Nikon Coolpix, 900/4500 (3 and 4 megapixels respectively), my 4/5 megapixel Olympus E10/E20 or an Olympus C 5050, the files (I shot in those days mainly JPGs) were usable for landscape images, and that the images were pleasing to the eye, even printed at 11×16” or even occasionally at 13x 19”.

Now it seems to me small sensors seem lousy, not only relative to larger sensored DSLRs but even compared to older imagers with half the resolution. I can’t tell if I’ve become spoiled by the likes of my D 700, or whether packing those tiny sensors with as little as 10 MP is having a deleterious effect on certain,  intangible measures of image quality.

Obviously, this discussion should be limited to base ISO. Even a 2/3” sensor such that came with the Olympus E 20, was horrible above ISO 200. A Canon S 100, LX5 and certainly the new Fuji X10, would wipe the floor with them at higher sensitivities.

But I do wonder whether there are other advantages of bigger pixels, even big old technology pixels, have characteristics that make up for the advances that have come since.

This is a 100% crop of an image shot with my Olympus C 5050 from a kayak in 2004. It makes a nice 11’x 16’ print, like many others from that camera. And, it was shot in RAW at ISO 200, miraculous for a bridge camera of that era. My other cameras at the time included a Fuji S2 pro. I often printed and sold images from the Olympus, again limited somewhat  in size relative to the Fuji. In this image I particularly notice the lack of noise, and reasonable detail.

Here are two images: one from my 2005 vintage Fujifilm E 900 which at the time was considered a marvel at high-resolution, High ISO (800 ASA max) shooting in a compact

.

It sports the same size 1 1/6” inch sensor as the LX5 which I used to take the other image. These were shot at ISO 400 in raw format, had the same exposure settings at f4, were corrected with the same settings in ACR, and sharpened with the same unsharpen mask settings in Photoshop.

I’m not saying that there’s no difference. I think the Fuji noise is coarser, and there could be a smidgen more color noise. Detail seems about the same. Now the E 900 sensor is 9 MP and of the so-called “SuperCCD” design, so famous in the F 30/31 Fuji compacts These were the cameras that arguably started the craze toward lower resolution, higher sensitivity sensors ( I still have one). I do feel however, that given the 5 years between models, the differences are modest. I’m pretty sure that the E 900 would compete nicely with many other modern imagers.

It should also be said the ergonomics of the LX-5 are significantly better than the older camera making it much more usable. Oddly enough the E 900 may have the first compact that disappointed me with it’s image quality (maybe because the size of the megapixels).  I did get some keepers( see December 2013)

Now that having said all that, the Panasonic can render details nicely, if shot right. Here’s a 100% crop of an image I took with the LX5 recently, also at ISO 400 .

What’s my point? I ‘m not sure there is one, except perhaps that as photo gear enthusiasts, we are seduced by the power of industry marketing,  which is aided at times by enthusiast websites who are connected to photo gear suppliers. Imagers are getting better, but perhaps more slowly than we think.

If you’re going to buy a new camera or camera body, make sure it functions better for you. Test it against the gear it’s set to replace. If it’s not truly more functional, don’t be afraid to send it back. And make sure that you buy  from reputable dealers that will allow you the privilege.

Also once in a while, If you have an older camera on your shelf, pick it up and shoot it. Print an image. You might be shocked just how much you like it.

These are the images from the 2011-2012 John Heinz, Allied Rehabilitation Calander.which we produce each year to benefit the pediatric rehabilitation programs at both campuses.

This is the third year  for this publication, for which I am honored to supply the photographs. I thought it might  be interesting to offer more information on the images that were ultimately chosen for this year’s calendar as well as the equipment used to acquire them. I hope it adds to the enjoyment for those who of you who have one  hanging on your wall. If not, you can purchase one here.

Cover: White Horse at Hillside

Panasonic Lumix G1, Lumix 14-45 f3.5

It’s no coincidence that our cover images have tended to be
shot at this unique location.

 The Lands at Hillside is a regional treasure, a non-for-profit organization whose mission is to preserve one of the most beautiful and historic farm properties in
Northeastern Pennsylvania: the historic Conyngham farm on Hillside road in Dallas Pennsylvania. The farm as currently run promotes sustainable agricultural practices, with grass-fed cows producing milk free of supplemental hormones. This milk can be purchased, along with many other natural food and craft items, at a retail outlet on the premises.

The farm also serves an educational site, where children and adults can be introduced to the dairy industry and milk production, as well as environmental issues. It is my honor to serve on the Board of Directors of this fine institution.

The image itself was captured in mid-February of 2010. I
recall hoping to photograph the animal out in the field, against a snowy
backdrop. However, a charming if frustrating characteristic of the species is
curiosity. Once a horse senses your presence, they invariably have to
investigate, a behavior that has spoiled many potential pastoral landscape
photos over the years. I do think however, that in this case,  the image captures nicely,
this element of his personality.

January: Winter Scene, Bear Creek Lake

Nikon D2x, Nikkor 17-35 f2.8

Bear Creek Village is a wonderful and historic summer resort community built around an impoundment at the confluence of several streams at the base of the Pocono Plateau.
The village and its surroundings are very picturesque and I often find
myself shooting there when conditions are right.

This image was captured in January of 2008 after a six-inch
snowfall freshened the appearance of the existing snowpack in our region.

The D2x combined with the excellent  Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8 lens, allows
impressive depth of field and detail to be revealed.

February: Hemlock Temple

Nikon D7000, Nikkor 16-85 f3.5

When most people think of Rickett’s Glen State Park, they  tend to think of
the Falls Trail, and the multiple beautiful waterfalls along the way. There is
however another area in the park that I love to visit. On the south side of route 118, beyond Adams Falls, is an area known as the Hemlock Temple, an example of a
true old growth stand of White pines and Hemlock.

Though not quite as impressive as “Forest Cathedral” at Cooks Forest State Park in western Pennsylvania, it is beautiful nonetheless, with huge conifers, some of which were adolescents when Columbus reached our shores.

On that day last February, I was snow shoeing among those
stately giants. The snowpack was deep and the trail unpacked, as it is not well
visited in the winter. It was a bit of a struggle to explore.

I remember shooting this image the lens stabilized on the
crook of two crossed ski poles to dampen the effects of a bounding heartbeat.
It seemed to have worked.

March: Barn at Herrick’s Corners

Fujifilm S3Pro, Tokina ATX 28-80 f2.8

March in our part of the Northeastern
US is for me one of the most challenging photographic months.

Winter is fading leaving behind a landscape scarred by
snowplows and cinders. Nothing much will bloom until April. Opportunities for
shooting landscapes are slim.

March can also be a snowy month.  Now I like snow, but by St Patrick’s Day,
most people want it to just go away. Those people probably include those of you who buy this calendar. So I usually try to find snowless images.

Given the lack of action in the natural world, I find myself
shooting a lot of images with barns and buildings in early spring.

This particular image was shot near the Elk Mountain
ski resort in Late March of 2006.

I like the collection of cars and farm equipment in the
field which I suspect remains there to this very day.

You can tell it’s late in the month by the slight red blush of the maple trees in the background as their buds swell in preparation for the warmer times coming.

April: Stone Wall, Lackawanna State Park

Nikon D2x, Nikkor 16-85mm f3.5

By April, particularly late April, things are starting to
happen. Buds are opening, trees and flowers blooming.  In late April of 2008, I visited Lackawanna State Park. This is a nice “day use”
park with a number of nice visuals. I was particularly taken by the intricate network of
stone walls that exist throughout the park.

I was drawn to this scene in particular by the sunbeam that
broke through a gap in the hemlocks to illuminate the spot.  I left the subtle sun flare in the image for the final version (it’s 2/3 of the way to the right, on the very bottom of the photo).  I think it adds context to the image.

May: Spring Blooms in Butler Township

Panasonic Lumix GH1, Lumix 14-45 f3.5

This spring seemed to take a long time to be fully realized.
April was wet and cold seemingly suppressing the “leaf out” until much later
than usual. In early May, we finally had a period of warm clear weather and the
foliage erupted with what seemed to be pent-up energy.

This image was shot near my office in Drums, after work was concluded for the day. The blooms to me seemed to be bursting out like fireworks, and I remember feeling grateful for the warm sun on my face, and for the thought that spring had finally, really arrived. It was featured in this article on the site.

June: Early Summer Corn, Hamlin

Fujifilm S5 Pro, Nikkor 16-85mm f3.5

I found this scene in late June 2008, returning from Goose
Pond Boy Scout camp, having just dropped off my son for a week with his troop.

I remember driving past, and observing the farmer, cultivating his hilly fields. By the
time I stopped and set up he was driving downhill, which didn’t seem as
aesthetic. I waited until he turned around, and proceeded uphill again, before
tripping the shutter.

By the way, note once again, the use of the Nikkor 16-85mm
f3.5 on another Nikon mount DX sensored camera. This is a versatile, high
quality lens with image stabilization and crisp optics. It is a light,
relatively inexpensive lens that I find really useful. If you’re a Nikon DX
shooter, add it to your kit. You won’t regret it.

July: Kayaks on the Susquehanna

Olympus E 510, Zuiko 14-42mm f3.5

Some days and events remind me that life is wonderful.

In this case, it was a July Saturday in 2007 when my son Gus and I attended the annual river trip sponsored by the North Branch Land Trust. It was a wonderful event. We entered the river near Wysox, and “put out” at Laceyville. It was a great day. It is easy to forget what a wonderful resource is  the Northern Susquehanna.

During the 4 hour river trip, we saw Bald Eagles, Blue Heron
rookeries and scenery gorgeous at a level that we don’t often connect with our
region.

I met a large number of friendly people.

I took this image at the lunch break when everyone “put in” on
the river bank. I was struck by the beautiful background and the brightly
colored kayaks in the foreground. The use of a circular polarizer on the lens really enhances the colors of the boats, the foliage, and the sky.

August: Monarch and Goldenrod.

Nikon D700, Nikkor 85mm f1.8

This was the scene on the Farmstead Trail at Nescopeck State Park which is essentially in my neighborhood.

It was a sunny late August day, and I decided to play around
photographically by limiting myself to the D 700 with a single prime lens. In
this case, I chose the Nikkor 85mm f1.8. I knew that the lens’ sharpness, and its ability to produce a shallow depth of field, would be major optical features to utilize.

I was walking in the middle of a field of goldenrod when I
spotted the Monarch wafting from cluster to cluster of the bright yellow
blooms.

To shoot this butterfly, I had to stalk him a bit, as he didn’t
seem to want to cooperate. Finally he landed near enough to me that I was able to frame
this image.

It was ultimately featured in an article on this blog called
“Eighty five millimeters”, which discussed shooting with a single focal length lens.

September: Black Eyed Susans at Hillside

Panasonic GH1, Lumix 20mm f1.7

Once again The Lands at Hillside are the subject of
an image, in this case, take at the rear entrance to “The Cottage” a gorgeous
late 19^th century summer “cottage” on the property that is
undergoing restoration.

The home has three stories, beautiful common rooms, multiple
guest rooms, original servants quarters, and a newly installed commercial
kitchen. It is truly spectacular facility, and is fast becoming a popular choice for weddings and other gatherings .

The small sensored GH1 normally isn’t the best choice for
shallow depth of field, but the Lumix 20mm lens I think pulls it off nicely
here.

October: Falls at Nay Aug Park

Nikon D700, Tokina 28-85mm f2.8

Nay Aug Park holds a lot of memories for me. Located on the eastern edge of Scranton
it has nice mix of facilities, including a pool complex, pavilions, and picnic areas.

There is also a trail that leads from the park down into a
gorge through which flows the aptly
named Roaring Brook. There is large waterfall with a deep splash basin
where generations of Scrantonians gathered their nerve to dive from the rocky
platforms above.

When we were students at the University of Scranton,
my wife and I often walked there in the evenings after class.

This image was captured from a tripod on observation
platform overlooking the falls in October of 2011. Note the lack of reds in the fall foliage,
the probable result of a fungus that particularly affected the maples, causing
their normally crimson leaves to “brown out”. It is said to be the result of the very wet summer and fall we have experienced this year. You can see the vertical version of this image in the article at the link.

November: Train Station at Hunlock’s Creek

Panasonic Lumix GH1, Lumix 45-200mm f4.0

November, like March can be tough for photographers. In most
cases, around these parts, the foliage is gone and the scenery bland, if not
dreary. One needs to find either foliage that changes later in the season, or
a locale where the season is delayed. In this case I chose the latter tactic.

Last November, I took a drive along the Susquehanna River
south to Berwick, thinking that the since the river flows at the lowest
altitude in the region, I might have some luck with late fall color.

Driving down route 11 I have often noticed what I understand
to be an old abandoned train station.  I pulled over and set up a tripod. I liked this angle in particular, emphasizing the buildings unusual “pagoda” architecture, and the clearly late fall look of the sycamores and maples. I used a telephoto focal length so that the trees
behind the building would be moved closer to the foreground.

December: Christmas Farm

Nikon D700, Tokina 28-80mm f2.8

Although most of these images are shot in the course of day–to-day shooting, there are definitely times when I set out to capture an image depicting a particular month or season, for use in this publication, . December, for instance is definitely a time when I  often shoot specifically for the calendar. I was thus pleased back in December of 2009 to come upon this scene, which to me evokes a sort of Norman Rockwell feel.

Now, photographing  people’s properties is legal from a public road.
I am very careful not to trespass. If I have no permission from the owner,
I try to shoot scenes that only involve what a passerby might see driving
past.

Sometimes, people are suspicious when they see me with a
camera pointed at their home. It can be easier sometimes to avoid conflict and move on.

If the scene is really compelling, I will stop and explain. That usually works.

On this occasion I encountered this scene at 4:30pm in early
December 2009. There wasn’t much light so I set up a tripod, which takes a
little time. As I worked, a car pulled in to the driveway driven by the property owner. I introduced myself, and explained the calendar, it charitable purpose, and that his home might someday be featured. He was very friendly, and seemed excited at the prospect.

I hope he likes the image as much as we did.

January 2013: Engine at Gracedale

Fujifilm E900

This image was taken at the Gracedale railroad yard, located  along route 437 in Mountaintop,. It was taken late in the afternoon, and late in January of  2007. I recall that it was quite cold and that snow was just beginning to fall. I drive past this scene every day, but at that moment I was struck by the contrast  between the bright green and yellow of the engine, and the dull greys and browns of the background.

The camera is an interesting little point and shoot, manufactured by Fujifilm.It was my “glove box camera”for many years. It produces great images and shoots in RAW, a rare feature for a compact camera in those days.

I have always like Fuji imagers. They have been known in the photographic community over the years for a flattering color profile, and high-resolution relative to the actual number of pixels on the chip. I have always felt that film manufacturers  have a natural advantage for certain aspects of  digital imaging, particularly in chip design (Kodak has produced nice imagers also). About three years ago, they stopped producing serious photo tools, filling their line with mediocre consumer cameras.

Now, Fuji is producing some wonderful cameras again. I have my eyes on several of  their new offerings.

Back Cover: October day at Lake Scranton

Nikon D7000, Nikkor 16-85mm f3.5

I have wonderful memories of Lake Scranton.
It’s another place where I courted my wife in college. I remember long walks
around the lake in the spring and fall.

I hadn’t been there in many years until I visited in October
of this year, camera in hand.

Things have changed a bit. I remember walking a gravel foot
path. Now there is a paved road around much of the lake. The scenery is lovely;  a jog around the lake remains a wonderful way to spend an hour or so exercising in the outdoors, minutes from the city.

I walked around a portion of the lake wanting an image
depicting the usual activities that occur there. We thought that this image makes
sense as a rear cover, given the vantage point from which it was shot.

Well, thanks for visiting. Feel free to explore the rest of the site. We love to get feedback.

If you bought one of our calendars, thanks for helping the children.