HDR need not apply with Nikon D3 [permalink]

High dynamic range (HDR) images are a valuable technique (see March 26 blog entry). But the Nikon D3 at ISO 100 or 200 is an incredible camera in terms of its exceptionally high pixel quality, which allows near-black areas to be lightened while maintaining very low noise and smooth tonal gradations. I’ve called the D3 the “poor man’s medium format”™ before, and it’s eminently true—this image can be lightened considerably more with no ill effect. But I like the balance of the image on the right.

  
Westwind Barn interior (as-shot at left)
(Nikon D3 + Voigtlander 40/2 @ f/11)

The image was lightened using the Quick Fix dialog of Nikon Capture NX 2, using the Shadow Protection feature. Effort required: a few seconds (well...maybe a minute to evaluate how much to lighten). I love features that deliver great results with minimal efforts. Read my article on Capture NX 2.

Fancy new lenses don’t make the image[permalink]

Do you need a fancy new lens to take interesting pictures? Not if you have any old ones sitting around—take some time to experiment with your “duds”.

Well, there’s no accounting for taste, but I like this image for its color, composition and blur. It was taken with an old Olympus 50mm f/1.2 that I had converted to Nikon mount by S.K. Grimes. Every lens “draws” uniquely, so I periodically cycle through my oddballs in hopes of getting some fresh ideas. The Olympus 50/1.2 looks like it deserves some exploration.

Child’s Play
(Nikon D3 + Olympus 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2, ISO 3200)

Voigtlander [permalink]

I’m evaluating two new Voigtlander lenses currently, on a 2-week loan courtesy of Stephen Gandy of CameraQuest: the Ultron 40/2 SL II aspheric, and the Nokton 58/1.4 SL II (see my Nov 11 2007 entry). Preliminary impressions: very high quality build, and these “chipped” lenses offer electronic aperture control as well. The imaging characteristics show promise, but it’s too early to conclude anything without more shooting—except that they will appeal to those looking for something other than the standard “look”. At $379 each, they are relative bargains (lens hood for the 58/1.4 is extra).

The 40/2 is particularly appealing for its diminutive size (“pancake lens”), its tiny lens hood, as well as its accompanying close up lens, though at 200 grams it’s heavier than one might assume. Users of compact Nikon DSLRs (D300 and smaller) looking for an extremely compact system should definitely take a look at the 40/2.

Barn Window
(Nikon D3 + Cosina Voigtlander 40/2 SL II @ f/8)

The bokeh of the 58/1.4 is definitely something I’ll be studying; it is distinctly different from the bokeh of the Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 Planar.

Opposing colors
(Nikon D3 + Cosina Voigtlander 58/1.4 @ f/1.4)

Has solar power finally arrived? [permalink]

The sun is good for more than taking pictures! Last year, I researched the economics of solar power, but concluded that paying $20K upfront for a payback period of about 12 years simply made no financial sense given the vagaries of electricity pricing. (Related: see my Aug 3 2007 comments on power consumption).

But this year the solar power situation has changed in an important way: Foster City, CA company solarcity.com is offering a lease with no money down, and a promise of net savings of about $500/year (in my particular case). It sounds like a no-brainer: have Solar City install solar panels, and actually save money, with even greater savings in following years. Now that’s an exceptional return on investment (ROI); where else can you invest $0 and get a dividend every month?

In my particular case, the claim is $0 down, and that the savings will exceed the lease payment by $445/year, based on electricity usage of 1200 KWh/month, and a 3.2KW solar system, the optimal generating capacity to “lop off” the most expensive electricity pricing tiers (see below). Solar City also states that maintainance is included and power output guaranteed. A neighbor of mine with a 9KW system was very satisfied with Solar City’s prompt service when the inverter failed.

In my area, we have a tiered pricing system for electricity. Elsewhere in California rates can be lower, depending on how the crooks (oops—regulators) devised the balkanized pricing scheme. And my town tacks on another 6.5% “utility users tax”. So solar starts to look pretty attractive :

San Francisco Bay Area electric bill
(rates go higher—I’ve experienced $0.38/KWh)

The key thing to notice is that it makes no financial sense to invest in a system which lops off more than the top two price tiers. Also, if you generate more electricity than you consume, you forfeit all of it at the end of the year. So don’t play that sucker game unless you have a guilty conscience about the environment—in that case install a 10KW solar system and enjoy your electric golf cart “daily driver” clad in your recycled-paper underwear. Finally, if the electric grid is down or suffering from brown-outs, so are you— these systems are wired into the grid; your existing wiring continues to draw power as it always has.

Being a natural skeptic, a few minor questions do come to mind:

• Who pays to wire the system to the grid? (from the solar system to the grid)
• What if the roof develops a leak as a result of the installation?
• How often do the panels need cleaning? Another chore...

Bottom line: the economics of solar power are definitely worth considering in some areas.

Nikon 8mm fisheye in infrared [permalink]

A student from U.C. Berkeley approached me about using infrared for a forestry study, and we explored the vintage Nikon 8mm fisheye on the D70-IR. Regrettably, the projecting flange at the rear of the lens precluded using it on the EOS 5D-IR; I wasn’t willing to force the lens on to see whether it would destroy the mirror.

No evidence of hot spotting with the 8mm was observed, even at f/16. This might be due to older “less sophisticated” lens coatings, which are more infrared friendly than modern multi-coatings. Flare control is excellent as well, but sharpness seems modest, even at f/11. Still, it's a fun lens to shoot! By comparison, the Nikon 10.5mm DX fisheye fills the DX frame, but has hot spot issues when stopped down.

Nikon D70-IR + 8mm fisheye @ ~ f/16
(No hot spot problem whatsoever)

Nikon D70-IR + 8mm fisheye @ ~ f/11
(No hot spot, no veiling flare, a few flare spots)

Followup on Nikon D3 focusing [permalink]

I recently sent my Nikon D3 into Nikon in order to rectify a manual focus problem; Nikon replaced the focusing system according to the repair notes. But it still isn’t right, or at least not as reliable as I expect and quite probably no better than before.

I used the Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar (I also cross-checked yesterday with the Nikon 105/2 DC to eliminate the lens as a variable—same problem). I ran two tests: the first was of a test chart, and the second was of a outdoor subject in full sun. For the Canon 1DsM3, the Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar was used with a Cameraquest Nikon-to-EOS lens adapter. All shots taken at f/2.

Focus accuracy success rate
Camera	B&W Test target	Outdoor scene
Nikon D3 + “E” screen	0/8 (backfocus)	N/A
Nikon D3 + standard screen	5/8 (backfocus)	3/10
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III	6/6	8/10

Not only did focusing seem easier with the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III (less ambiguous and easier to distinguish in-focus image), the results speak for themselves; the 1DsM3 absolutely nailed the test target with spot-on manual focus down to the millimeter.

By comparison, the D3 with the “E” screen was off (back-focused) all 8 of 8 attempts—hopeless. Results were better with the standard (as-shipped) D3 focusing screen, but still unacceptably variable. The only variable left to eliminate is the DK-17M magnifying eyepiece. I had previously tested for that issue, but found no improvement—I’ll do it again and re-verify.

WTF? What do these results mean? Is the camera still defective after repair, or is it just that it’s harder to manually focus a Nikon D3 as compared with focusing a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III? Maybe it’s worth sending the D3 into Nikon service for a recheck, but gosh that’s frustrating.

Test target — manual focus, 6/6 like this
(Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III + Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar)


Test target — manual focus showing backfocus with standard screen, typical
(Nikon D3 + Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar)

Note that the color fringing seen above is a clean sign of being out of focus, and a behavioral characteristics of non-apochromatic lenses. See “What color is your background?”.

Outdoor test scene—the wheel on the wagon — manual focus, typical
(Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III + Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar)


Outdoor test scene—the wheel on the wagon — manual focus, typical
(Nikon D3 + Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar)

Nikon’s nano-crystal coating [permalink]

This interview makes for an interesting reading on the development of Nikon’s nano-crystal coating, most recently used to good effect in the 14-24/2.8G. I can attest that the 14-24/2.8 is without a doubt the best wide angle zoom every offered, and its coatings are absolutely stellar.

Click to read the Nikon interview

What color is your background? APO lenses [permalink]

Do APO (apochromatic) lenses make a difference? (An apochromatic lens focuses all colors equally, avoiding axial and lateral chromatic aberrations eg color fringing). See for yourself in my update to the Coastal Optics 60/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro review. Expect more on this topic in the future using additional lenses.

Even my cherished Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar shows the ugly magenta/green discoloration common to non-APO lenses. Shown below is an actual pixels crop. Of course, in most images the background blurs in such a manner as to mask the problem, but it is an unnatural effect with images containing high-contrast details, one the eye picks up on.

Magenta/green color fringing @ f/2
(Nikon D3 + Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar)

In the real world our eyes don’t see these “bad trip” color fringes, so why is it acceptable in a lens? Alas, cost intervenes—the Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar would likely sell at 2-3X the price were it apochromatic, because achieving apochromatic performance not only requires exotic glasses (eg fluorite), but also extremely high precision during lens coating and assembly (see also my blog entries on the Leica 90/2 APO).

It is not by accident that the Leica 90/2 APO Summicron-R ASPH, 180/2.8 APO Elmarit-R and 280/4 APO lenses are so expensive—achieving APO performance is very difficult; Nikon and Canon cannot claim a single APO lens between them (though many of their lenses are very well corrected for color).

Nikon D3 and Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III settings files [permalink]

A nice feature of the latest Canon and Nikon DSLRs is the feature of saving and loading camera settings to/from the flash card; if you just bought a new camera and/or you switch between camera bodies this can be very helpful.

A reader who just bought a Nikon D3 requested that I post the settings file I use for the Nikon D3. I’ve done so for the D3 and also for the Canon EOS 1D Mark III and 1Ds Mark III in Camera Settings.

Nikon D3 color rendition [permalink]

My Nikon D3 is back from repair, and I took a few snapshots on the way to a conference today in San Francisco. Having been shooting the 21MP Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III for the past 3 weeks while the D3 was away, I had gotten used to the dullness of the 1DsM3 images (well, not really). Examining the D3 images this evening, I was once again struck by the dramatic difference in the vibrancy in both color and tone. Viewing D3 images is like viewing the original, looking at the 1DsM3 images is like looking at a copy. At least that’s the way it feels to me, though I admit to the idea that different raw-file conversion could narrow the gap. But I don’t think it would close it.

Judge for yourself below, keeping in mind that smaller images and JPEG compression don’t aid the comparison. The image has been processed straight from Capture NX (“Standard”, -0.17EV) with no effort at further post-processing. It exemplifies the color and tone I see from the D3.

Nikon D3 + Zeiss ZF 28/2 Distagon @ ~f/8
(click for larger image)

On my to do list: side-by-side comparison to prove what I’m seeing. And please don’t misinterpret my remarks: the EOS 1Ds Mark III is an outstanding camera, with much higher resolution than the Nikon D3—a different “animal”.

Nikon D3 has been repaired [permalink]

Well, I wasn’t crazy after all, at least not about my Nikon D3. Nikon has replaced the entire focusing assembly on my D3 (according to my local camera store), which called me to tell me it’s ready for pick-up. I pick up the repaired D3 tomorrow. How does this stuff get past quality control? Now I must test the camera, because there is no guarantee they fixed it properly (versus just putting in new parts and praying)—never take such things for granted.

Anyway, it’s not every day that one observes a house cat catching, toying with, and then devouring a gopher—I could use several such devoted cats in my yard! The D3’s focusing problem ruined most of my shots of this series. A tip for any cats reading this: brains are the tastiest part, then work your way down, the feet can be discarded, but the rest is yummy.

Natural consequences

Replace that OEM strap [permalink]

Ever walk around with your heavy DSLR strapped around your neck? After 30 minutes or so, it’s not so fun with the big pro cameras, especially with a big zoom lens—the package can weigh 5 pounds (2+ kilos) or so. Nikon and Canon continue to ship the world’s most uncomfortable camera straps, made of rigid material that offers no “give”, but on the plus side they do offer blatant brand-name advertising to impress your friends. One wonders why every aspect of a product isn’t scrutinized for constant improvement, including the strap.

It’s amazing how much more comfortable the OpTech ProLoop system is; it stays put better, and the neoprene offers enough stretch and “give” to make a real difference in comfort. I can hike all day in Yosemite and stay reasonably comfortable with a Nikon D3 or Canon 1 series body hung around my neck. The OpTech ProLoop costs as little as $17 at amazon.com, and it’s worth every penny. The main loop can also be detached in seconds, a nice plus in windy conditions on a tripod. There are other good alternatives, but this is the strap I’ve standardized on for all my cameras. Why not try one today? Even if you shoot a smaller and lighter DSLR, you’ll not be disappointed.

Recommended camera strap

UV filters—Hoya vs B+W [permalink]

The spectral transmission graphs discussed on May 2nd require some mental effort which is not really necessary for understanding the issues with UV filters. Let your own eyes be the judge instead, and see the Spectral Transmission page for more thoughts on the Hoya and B+W filters shown below. The the Hoya is not neutral should be readily apparent. That does not make it a “bad” filter, but it is a factor to be aware of if you are seeking to maintain the natural color balance of your lenses, especially the exquisitely color-matched Zeiss ZF line.

Hoya Ultra UV(0) at left, B+W 010 MRC at right

Article delivery [permalink]

Today’s internet is hobbled by spammers. Personally, I’d like to make it a felony punishable by a year in prison licking envelopes 24X7, with breakfast, lunch and dinner consisting of the real thing, though I’m not entirely cold-hearted—Spam Spread and Spam Hot and Spicy could be allowed too, perhaps on holidays.

Though infrequent, I do sometimes receive indignant emails from buyers of my paid reviews, who unfortunately (for both of us) haven’t checked their “spam” box after paying for an article. Here is one recent email verbatim:

I ordered your Sharpness article 2 days ago thru paypao and have heard nothing back from you even though you say your response is 24 hours. Please tell me how to doenload the artlicle I paid for.

I take delivery of paid reviews very seriously. In this case, a response was sent 2 hours 5 minutes after receipt of the PayPal confirmation. In such cases, I respond (again) with multiple responses through multiple mail servers, hoping the buyer will think of checking the same spam box! (And it’s simply amazing how in most cases no further contact information is provided other than the original problem email address.) In the future, this web site will move to an online “instant access” approach to forestall such headaches.

Depth of field [permalink]

I’ve added excerpts from previous work on depth of field.

See Depth of Field and Depth of Field—The Shorter Focal Length Advantage.

    
Two articles on depth of field

Spectral transmission graphs [permalink]

I’ve updated the Spectral Transmission Graphs page with 7 new filters, courtesy of Coastal Optics (I sent them seven of my own personal filters for testing). See also the main review page of the Coastal 60/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro.

The new spectral transmission charts confirm a nagging annoyance that several years ago caused me to give up Hoya HMC Super UV filters—they attenuate the blue end of the spectrum all the way to 500nm, yielding a non-neutral color balance. These days, my lenses nearly always image the world free of filters, but in dusty or salt-spray environs I do use a UV filter, always a B+W MRC.

Compare the Hoya transmission to the B+W UV 010 MRC; the Hoya rounds off the dark blue end of the spectrum. While this might be an advantage at high altitudes, a completely neutral filter is a better choice for most purposes—who wants neutered blues for sky, water, eyes, etc? Color rendition is frequently ignored when assessing optical quality, but it is one good reason the Zeiss ZF Lenses are so stunning by comparison to most lenses.

Visible light is approximately 390-700 nanometers, with infrared starting at 700nm.

B+W UV 010 — almost perfect transmission in the visible band

Hoya HMC Super UV (0) — blue light is attenuated

By the way, did you ever wonder if “neutral density” filters are actually neutral? When I was researching The Sharpest Image I used a neutral density filter with the Nikon 200mm f/2. I observed that it imparted an odd color cast, which should be clear from the spectral transmission graph, this one for a B+W 3-stop filter:

B+W 103 ND 0.9 3-stop neutral density filter