Goodbye 2009 PERMALINK

May the coming year be kind to you! It’s the first day of the rest of your life, and mine too, even if I don’t grow any new hair.

I thank all my subscribers this year, as well as those who made the effort to use my product links (B&H Photo, Amazon), both of which sustain this site.

Follow what’s happening here using the RSS Feed or Twitter, and of course this mailing list.

The self-portrait at right was taken in October during a wondrous October snowstorm. Self portraits are one useful reason to have an 18mm or 21mm lens, try several times and something passable often results.

Mac Pro drive sleds for fast swapping of drives PERMALINK

In a Mac Pro, drives are installed by installing the drive into a drive “sled” (four screws). Then the sled is pushed into one of the four drive bays (the Mac Pro must be shut down, hot swapping is not advised).

With an unused drive bay, or when you can temporarily remove one of the drives, this is one option for quickly swapping in one or more hard drives. Reasons to do so include:

• Backup: swap in a backup drive, remove when done.
• Projects: swap a set of drives for a large video project or different client job.
• Security: pull drives with sensitive information, with drives for different jobs/clients.

Your best bet is to use a separate system drive (Mac OS X itself and applications), by installing a solid state drive into the lower optical bay, here’s how. Then all four bays can be used for drives, thus offering good computing hygiene by keeping system/applications separate from your data.

A hard drive mounted in a drive sled

OWC is having a year-end “garage sale”, where You can get additional drive sleds for the 2006-2008 Mac Pro or for the 2009 Mac Pro at OWC. At $16.75 each for the 2009 Mac Pro, they offer great convenience for some Mac Pro users. OWC also has a video showing how to do it.

Gear or taxes? PERMALINK

Here in the US, if you’re a business, you have two days left to buy gear for 2009 and make it deductible. If you ship it, be sure to ship it overnight so it arrives in 2009, just in case. Be sure to ask your tax advisor about “section 179" — how about writing off the entire cost of the equipment, not just a measly 20% deprecation?! Consult your tax advisor here, I am absolutely not giving tax advice, just mentioning the topic for your own investigation.

If you already need some “stuff”, why not check out my gear (wish) lists at B&H for camera gear and computer stuff— no sense buying in January 2010 when you can get a 2009 tax deduction. The lists are at left, under the B&H search box. And don’t forget that OWC has year-end deals too.

Great computer choices include the NEC 25.5" display with calibrator, which has now dropped to a very reasonable $1169, or any Apple Mac Pro. See this list.

Even if you don’t need a new camera, you might need flash cards, filters, accessories or even lens caps, better bought with a “government discount” now, rather than next year.

Resolution contest: Nikon D3x vs Nikon D3s PERMALINK

Just published to my Nikon D3s review in DAP is a detailed comparison of the D3s to D3x using the Zeiss ZF 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar. The D3x shows its superior resolution, but the advantages over the D3s might be less than one would think.

The finely-detailed test scene

Web browser color display (fix for Firefox) PERMALINK

Several readers emailed with suggestions on fixing color management in Firefox 3.5.x web browser, see yesterday’s blog entry, Color Rendition in Browsers. I'm talking about Apple Macs here with OS X Snow Leopard, not how Firefox works on a Windows machine.

Update: I'm told that Firefox 3.6 might fix the problem with 3.5.x. I haven’t checked.

One suggestion worked: specifying a full path to the monitor profile. I’ve written up the steps, please see How to Fix Firefox Color Management. With this fix, both Safari and Firefox display tagged images correctly (those with an embedded profile).

The Apple Safari 4 browser continues to display untagged images badly. For this reason I always include a color profile for the images I post.

So we have a ridiculous situation where Safari won’t display untagged images properly (also some web colors and backgrounds), and Firefox requires a technical fix (and also can’t handle ICC v4 profiles). Firefox is also a slower browser. Choose your poison.

Show below are two examples. For each example, the image at top has an embedded sRGB profile, and one has no profile (untagged). Apple Safari displays the untagged image as raw RGB data, resulting in dark and over-saturated color. This is why I always include a color profile in my images. But many sites do not.

Mouse over the image below to see the untagged version. If the browser displays untagged images as sRGB, then you will see no change. Otherwise (as with Safari), you get something very different.

With embedded sRGB profile: mouse over to see untagged version

Without a color profile (untagged)

Here’s another example with a very different color scheme. This time the image profile is ProPhotoRGB, a wide-gamut color space, sRGB is shown below it, then an untagged image.

Image below is ProPhotoRGB (tagged). Mouse over to see the same image in ProPhotoRGB, but untagged. Click to see the variants side-by-side.

With embedded ProPhotoRGB color profile: mouse over to see untagged version

Image below is sRGB (tagged). Mouse over to see the same image in sRGB, but untagged. Safari 4 will not display it correctly, but Firefox will.

With embedded sRGB color profile: mouse over to see untagged version

Zeiss ZF.2 lenses — focusing feel PERMALINK

I noticed a subtle but what I think is significant difference between my older ZF lenses versus the new ZF.2 samples: the focusing feel is now as smooth as I’ve felt in any lens.

It feels like the lubrication has changed for the better; it is simply luxurious and I’d rate it better than any other lens line I’ve used, including Leica. I like it very much, the feedback is incredibly good and perfectly damped, fantastic. The original ZF line was always very smooth, but somehow the ZF.2 lenses feel even better. I believe that the ZE line for Canon shares the same approach.

See my Nov 19 notes on the ZF.2 line. I prefer the ZF.2 line now that I’ve used it, mainly for electronic aperture control, but the actual practical difference is minimal for many types of shooting. All models are optically identical.

Check out my convenient lists of Zeiss ZF.2 (for Nikon) or Zeiss ZE (for Canon) at B&H Photo. Note that the ZF.2 line costs about 20% more than the original ZF model, but you can also save about 21% buying the ZF model, good for those on a budget.

Speaking of ZF.2, I had another near-dark experience tonight. While I could not see well enough to focus, the focus assist of the Nikon D3s did the trick. Below is a photo taken with the Nikon D3s using the Zeiss ZF.2 35mm f/2 Distagon, the 35/2 being a longtime favorite. Taken at ISO 6400 then pushed 1.3 stops (ISO ~17000, it shows the outrageous image quality of the Nikon D3s, as previously reported and examined at length in my D3s review. But the 35/2 Distagon offers compelling color and contrast to match the elegance of the D3s sensor, a perfect combination.

Noise reduction is completely off for these examples.

Nikon D3s + Zeiss ZF.2, f/2 @ 1/60 sec handheld, ISO 6400 pushed 1.33 stops

Nikon D3s + Zeiss ZF.2, f/2 @ 1/60 sec handheld, ISO 6400

Nikon 70-200/2.8G VR II flare examples PERMALINK

I’ve added three examples to the flare page in my review of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II. See also previous notes.

Nikon D3x + AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

Installation videos for all Macs PERMALINK

Nervous about installing memory or hard drives or other stuff in your Mac Pro or MacBook Pro or other Mac? OWC has a wide variety of free installation videos to make the process easy.

While you’re there, check out their year-end deals. I particularly like the 8TB QX2, great for anyone who needs a big chunk of reliable external storage (eg video or online backup), because you can run it as a 6TB volume using RAID 5, offering resiliency against failure of one drive (see my review). Mac Pro users will want to use it with an eSATA card.

Adobe Lightroom 3 beta performance — not good PERMALINK

Update: two readers have reported gluttonous memory usage by LR 3. On reader reports LR3 using 12GB of real memory. Another reports it taking 3.4GB real memory on his laptop. In my recent testing, I did not observe this bug, though I had previously seen runaway memory usage with LR2.
...

A beta version should be near-final— feature complete, architecturally stable, just minor bugs to fix. So I expect performance of a beta version to equate reasonably closely to the final release, and in that regard the future looks dim for Lightroom 3.

I downloaded Adobe Lightroom 3 and ran a brief test of Import of 128 Canon 21MP CR2 files, running both Lightroom 2.6 and Lightroom 3 as 64-bit applications, and using the Mac OS X Snow Leopard 64-bit kernel (here’s how). I used my quad-core 2.66GHz Mac Pro Nehalem with 12GB memory, and an ultra-fast 4-drive striped RAID capable of 500MB/sec. Memory usage with Lightroom 3 was modest, staying sell under 1GB.

I ran the test twice for each version of Lightroom, rebooting each time and starting with an empty catalog, no cache, etc. The results are plain to see: if you want a major slowdown for Import, Lightroom 3 beta delivers your coffee break to you.

Import 128 RAW files (21MP Canon CR2)
Lightroom 3 vs Lightroom 2

Curiously, while Lightroom 3 makes more use of CPU cores while generating 1:1 previews, utilization is erratic: during an Import, its CPU utilization is near maximum initially, then it plummets to perhaps 200%, and then for a long time it uses 580% on average (max 800% for 8 virtual cores on a quad-core Mac Pro).

But increased CPU usage does not mean increased efficiency. Even as it gobbled CPU resources, Lightroom 3 ran substantially slower than Lightroom 2 for Import, as the graph shows. That could mean a variety of things, perhaps the RAW conversion is different from Lightroom 2 (I used high quality 1:1 previews for both). Or it might just mean poor implementation. Changes to conversion algorithms are always of concern, since that means you can never rely on getting the same results! I don’t know the explanation.

I haven’t yet tried Lightroom 3 Export, but see my Optimizing Lightroom page for a performance tip good for a substantial speedup.

Neither Lightroom 2 nor Lightroom 3 fully utilizes a quad-core Mac Pro for Import, which is one example of why I’ve advocated for some time now that a quad-core machine is as good or better than an 8-core machine for most users, due to the current state of Adobe software, see When More is Less. Specific software (other brands/programs) can use 8 cores, see the list. So the choice depends heavily on where you spend your time (which applications doing what). Even so, when software is updated to utilize all CPU cores better, it’s a big win whether you have a 4 or 8 core Mac Pro, which have 8 / 16 virtual cores respectively ie hyperthreading.

As an aside, the new Lightroom 3 Import dialog is one of the most godawful designs yet foisted on the public, with important settings scattered left/right/top/bottom in the dialog, and a butt-ugly dark gray interface with terrible visual ergonomics. The dialog cannot be resized, so it’s either too small or absurdly huge on my 30" display. Is nonsense like this why Adobe takes so long to improve real features? The Lightroom 2 dialog was clean and well designed, I dread explaining to a newbie friend of mine how to grok the Lightroom 3 mutation.

Color rendition in browsers PERMALINK

Update: reader René D pointed me to this page, which discusses a bug in Firefox 3.5.x. Reader Fábio P suggests that using a full path to the monitor profile for gfx.color_management.display_profile (in about:config) might help, and also points me at this thread. Of course having to reconfigure FF every time I calibrate my monitor is a nuisance (I include a date in each profile). Anyway, here’s how to fix Firefox 3.5.x, it worked for me.

However, the full path to the profile works! Here is how to fix color management in Firefox 3.5.x.

...

It’s a very confusing situation with browser display of color. Bottom line is that I have no idea what my readers are seeing on their own systems. I do include a color profile with all the images I post, and 99% of them are in sRGB color space.

I can say only the following with certainty at this point, based on my own testing with Apple Safari 4.0.4 and Firefox 3.5.6 on Mac OS X 10.6.2:

• Safari 4.0.4 (Mac or PC) is the only browser that closely matches what I see in Adobe Photoshop CS4. There are subtle differences, perhaps due to a rendering intent difference, but images match closely what I see in Photoshop.
• On my Mac Pro with a NEC 30" calibrated and profiled display, Firefox 3.5.6 does not display even sRGB images correctly. I’ve trashed its preferences (~/Library/Application Support/Firefox/Profiles), tried plugins such as ColorManagement 0.5.1, set gfx.color_management.mode=1 in about:config, no luck. Firefox display of images is way off, a complete mismatch for Photoshop CS4.
• On my other Mac Pro with an Apple 30" display and an Apple-generated display profile, Firefox does display the image properly. I suspect that Firefox cannot handle my monitor profile, even though it is a version 2.1.0 profile (generated by NEC Spectra View II software).

Several readers have written (thank you), stating that either or both Firefox solutions mentioned above work for them, but I’m sorry to say that neither solution works for me, and this is obvious on my calibrated and profiled NEC 30" monitor. As a side note, ordinary monitors simply cannot display much of the wide gamut I regularly see in Nikon images, so perhaps that is a factor also.

The images below are from a screen shot of both browsers side-by-side. Both images will still look wrong in Firefox, and oddly it doesn’t even display this image correctly, though it is in sRGB. Maybe it just can’t handle my monitor profile (v2.1). it does display this image correctly on my other Mac Pro, but that one has an Apple 30" display with its own Apple-generated profile. Another mystery.

Bottom line: The best choice for getting accurate color in your browser is Apple Safari 4.

Color rendition: left side is approximately correct, right side is way off
(that’s assuming your monitor can display these colors)
Image is in sRGB, taken from screen shot from Safari (left) and Firefox (right)

Nikon D3x vs Nikon D3s PERMALINK

Making interesting comparisons at dusk between the 24MP Nikon D3x and 12MP Nikon D3s is difficult because the light changes greatly in even 30 seconds, not enough time to swap the lens, focus, match the composition, etc. I might have to use a boring daylight shot instead. And tonight’s hope for consistent conditions for at least a few minutes was thwarted by ever-changing fog.

I’m working on an comparison for my D3s review in DAP of just what you get in a D3x as compared to a D3s in terms of additional resolution, along with noise and color. My impression based on tonight’s shooting is that the D3x definitely comes out ahead at low ISO values (100/200/400), perhaps up to ISO 800 or so. With twice the pixels, higher noise is magnified less in a print, and the greater resolution is a win, though the difference is less than one might think. Beyond ISO 800 it’s a tougher call, but there is a case to be made that the D3x might still be preferred up to ISO 1600, at least for some shooting.

This image below is presented in AdobeRGB color space to avoid squashing the reds; it will look garish in many browsers, quite wrong. The only browser that displays images reasonably accurately in my testing is Apple Safari for Mac or PC, details. More on that in the next blog entry below.

Looking for good color gamut and uniform grayscale? Then you want the NEC 30" with calibrator, which has dropped in price to under US$2000 now! It’s a fabulous monitor, here’s why. Remember, if you can’t see it, your chances of making a print that matches your vision diminish greatly. Today’s DSLRs, especially Nikons, have a very wide gamut, and the latest Epson printers have a wider gamut in some colors than even the best monitors.

Golden Gate Bridge at dusk
Nikon D3x + Zeiss ZF.2 50/2 Makro-Planar @ f/5.6, 13 seconds, ISO 50 +1 push

Here’s another, but with the Canon 5D Mark II and the new Zeiss ZE 100/2 Makro-Planar.

Golden Gate Bridge, early night
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZE 100/2 Makro-Planar

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II — flare PERMALINK

To my DAP review of the 70-200 VR II, I’ve added a page discussing flare for the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II on the Nikon D3s.

In general the 70-200VR2 is outstanding with respect to flare, but sunlight striking the front lens element is a problem.

I’m very pleased with the 70-200VR2 overall, it’s clearly the best zoom of its range yet devised by Nikon, and probably better than all four of the Canon 70-200 designs as well. It does have some disappointments, which I discuss in my review, but no lens is perfect, and I’ll be buying a copy for myself, which is perhaps the strongest endorsement I can give.

You can get 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II at B&H Photo, it was in stock as I wrote this.

Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco
Nikon D3s + Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II — sharpest aperture? PERMALINK

To my DAP review of the 70-200 VR II, I’ve added a page discussing the optimal aperture for the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II on the Nikon D3s.

Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco
Nikon D3s + Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II — new examples on D3s PERMALINK

To my DAP review of the 70-200 VR II, I’ve added a fresh page of examples with the Nikon 70-200mm VR II, this batch shot using the 12 megapixel Nikon D3s at the San Francisco Zoo.

Grizzly Bear, captive
Nikon D3s + Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

The zookeepers did not plan ahead when installing the safety glass for the lion and tiger exhibits, made necessary by human stupidity. This is now your viewing experience of those magnificent animals, a disappointment which actively discourages me from visiting.

Big Cats somewhere
Nikon D3s + Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II good sample PERMALINK

I reported a hot spot problem with the first sample of the 70-200/2.8G VR II on Dec 14, revoking my recommendation of it “until such time as I can test a second sample”.

I have now tested a replacement sample of the 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II alongside the original sample, and I am glad to report that the replacement all but eliminates the hot spot problem seen with the original sample. For full details, see my new hotspot page in DAP, where I provide three examples at 200mm from both samples.

The hot spot I observed occurs on both the D3x and the D3, so it is not specific to one model of camera, and most likely is a pure optical design issue, but one sensitive to assembly tolerances.

Several readers tested their own samples of the 70-200VR2, and stated that they could not reproduce the problem that I showed with my sample, or at least the hot spot was much less pronounced. Indeed, that is my finding with the replacement sample, which neither shows the right-edge blur nor the pronounced hot spot ergo the problem is related to poor assembly quality, which might thrust an otherwise minor optical issue into prominence. It is certainly not unheard of (even with Leica), for some optical designs to show sensitivity to assembly tolerances. Which makes one wonder about long-term performance of such a complex lens— handle gently.

Consistent with my findings for the replacement sample, I deem the 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II “highly recommended”, since it performs admirably in so many ways. In fact, the Nikon 70-200VR2 might well be the best 70-200 design yet to come from Nikon or Canon. But do be sure to perform the tedious exercise of validating your own sample, something which should not be required of a US$2400 lens, but nonetheless is sensible before trusting the lens.

You can get the 70-200mm f/2.8G VR III at B&H Photo, it was in stock as I wrote this.

Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco
Nikon D3s + Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

Nikon D3s: limits of resolution PERMALINK

Just published is a new page in DAP analyzing the limits of the Nikon D3s resolution, with what I consider a worst-case example in terms of resolution and the limits of Bayer-pattern sensor technology.

This example is key reading for anyone contemplating the 24MP Nikon D3x versus the 12MP Nikon D3s. No one should think for a moment that 12 = 24: the appropriate tool for the job in some cases means the highest resolution.

Golden Gate Bridge at sunset
Nikon D3s + Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II

Perception and footprints PERMALINK

Normal perception will show something odd about these footprints (they appear to project upward eg they are raised above the sand). There is no manipulation here, this is as-shot.

Footprints at the beach
Nikon D3s + Zeiss ZF 35/2 Distagon @ f/8

Winter in California, Leap for Joy
Nikon D3s + Zeiss ZF 35/2 Distagon @ f/8

Merry Shopping Interlude Day PERMALINK

Those who celebrate Christmas with its meaning: Merry Christmas!

For those who simply enjoy time with friends and family: me too, I’m off to the beach! (Update: it was 70° and sunny and calm at Pomponio Beach. This is perhaps why people pay one of the highest tax rates in the country).

And for those who shopped and will resume soon: rest up!

This shopping frenzy is mostly a USA phenomenon though perhaps it has metastasized... is it not best to give and share any day of the year of your choosing in the high state of appropriateness.

Speeding up your laptop PERMALINK

Crucial 256GB SSD

The best thing you can do to make your laptop run faster is to move to a solid state drive eg SSD (that’s assuming you have 4GB or more memory already).

Even on systems with maxed-out memory (8GB these days), using the SSD means that any virtual-memory paging hits a far faster device than a hard drive. So it’s a huge win not just for files, but for memory access when the limits are reached.

Update: my recommendation has changed. See my review of the OWC Mercury Elite enterprise-class SSD.

I recommend the Crucial M225 256GB for capacity reasons on top of its blistering speed. The 128GB model works also, if that’s enough space for you. See my review and recent blog entry on the Intel 160GB. The Intel is also a fine choice. Faster, lower power, more reliable, the only thing to dislike is cost.

Mac or PC, an SSD is a big boost to laptop performance. Mac users can upgrade without having to reinstall the system or applications, here’s how. You can be running on your spiffy new SSD in under an hour. Get the Crucial 256GB and a great choice of other SSD products at Other World Computing. You can also find Crucial at B&H Photo or Amazon.

Some users, including myself, will be moving to dual SSDs inside a MacBook Pro, externalizing the optical drive and utilizing a bracket for the 2nd SSD, my report to follow in January. I offer consulting to professionals seeking to do this in the best possible way.

New sample of Nikon 70-200/2.8G VR II PERMALINK

I have received a replacement sample of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II. I will be checking on the right-side blur and hot spot issues that I observed (and documented in DAP). See my previous blog entries.

Mailing list for diglloyd.com PERMALINK

Not all readers are aware of my mailing list.

You control what you get, and it’s a low volume offering, so far it has not averaged more than about 3 times per month, total. You can always unsubscribe on your own, each email contains unsubscribe information. The email address you use can be anything you desire, it need not be related to your subscription (if any).

Subscribe to the mailing list

Reader comments PERMALINK

I always appreciate reader comments, here are a few.

Just a quick note to say thanks for your blog, read it almost everyday. Am I the only one, or do the photos taken with the respective Zeiss 100 mm f2. look a hell of a lot better on the D3s? Big difference to me form the 5D MKII and the D3s. — Jim G

In truth the D3s is stunning, and even before the D3s I always felt (and wrote) that the Canon 5D Mark II has an impaired gestalt. But the D3s is twice the price, and the D3x is even costlier, and perhaps Canon has something nifty in the works. Invest in lenses for the long-term and there one must make a choice.

As a subscriber and regular reader from Germany of your blog, site and newsletter, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for all your work. I'm glad I found your site this year. It is one of the most useful photo sites on the web for me and helps a lot to make the right decisions. There is no other site that has so much useful information about the Zeiss lenses. Much goes probably on your account that I have added now the fifth ZF lens to my camera bag - a 2/100 macro-planar. — Klaus H

I realize that I have reduced bank account balances worldwide, I’m doing my part to help stimulate the economy! Maybe here in the US, a stimulus package #3 should be for photographers, since the first two worked so well. Santa Claus is real for some.

Thank you for the info you have provided in your DAP throughout the year... You should receive the Nobel Prize in fair dinkum photography equipment reviews and Mac reviews, you certainly put in a lot of hard yakka in getting the facts together that no one else seems to want to do, especially the nitty gritty detail. — Peter D

I’d settle for Nikon fixing self time and mirror up to work together! Indeed the reviews are a lot of work, but I turned my long-ago frustration at not being able to obtain good information into addressing the problem in whatever small way I could.

I became only recently a member of your site. Just would like you to know that I enjoy immensely the wealth of knowledge one can find on your website/blog. Thank you kindly. Hope it will help me figure out what to buy in the new year. (Can't decide whether i should move from the M8 to the M9 ... or keep the M8 and get a D3X [or whatever Canon does with their 1DsMark IV] ... or buy the M9, sell the M8 and get the D3s [or 1D Mark IV - well, either Nikon or Canon system] ... or screw everything and get into PhaseOne MF.... decisions, decisions ;) Anyway, many thanks for your hard work. I appreciate it and am happy that I found your site. — Hbenz S

I’ll do my best to lay out the issues, but in the end it’s one’s own preferences and working habits that drive the best decision— “best” makes sense only in context.

Reports of slow site response PERMALINK

Several readers have written to note very slow site response.

My repeated tests indicate that the site is running at peak speed. If you experience a problem, please let me know, but do please indicate your internet service provider (ISP) as well as your country/region and time you saw the issue. Sometimes there are regional bottlenecks, or those peculiar to a particular ISP.

Leica M lens prices going up PERMALINK

Leica USA is raising prices 5-13% on Leica M lenses (M9, M8 and other M cameras), starting Jan 1st. This is already reflected in the “temporarily unavailable” status of several popular focal lengths, namely 50mm models and the 35/1.4 Summilux-M.

Zeiss recently (Dec 14) raised prices on its ZM line (for Leica M8/M9/M), but you can still find some ZM lenses at the old prices. If you have a Leica M8/M9, one lens I really liked with the M9 was the distortion-free and superbly sharp 35/2 Biogon. I also really liked the ultra low distortion 21/4.5 Biogon, but consider it for black-and-white work only, due to color shifts at the edges of the frame. See my review of the M9 in DAP.

For your convenience, here is a B&H wish list with all the Leica M and Zeiss ZM lenses listed by focal length; you can quickly see what’s still available and what’s not. You might also find things at Amazon.

Remember that for lenses wider than 28mm, you’ll also need the viewfinder. For Zeiss ZM, all but the 18mm require buying the lens shade separately.

The Zeiss ZE (Canon) and ZF.2 (Nikon) lines are already fully priced, no change there.

Zeiss ZE 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar examples on Canon EOS PERMALINK

Just published in Guide to Zeiss ZF/ZE Lenses are examples with the new Zeiss ZE 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for Canon EOS (shot on the 5D Mark II).

December Roses
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZE 100/2 Makro-Planar @ f/2, 1/250 second, ISO 800

Nikon D3s long exposures at low ISO PERMALINK

Just published in DAP are high resolution Nikon D3s examples at ISO 200 with long exposures (up to 30 seconds). Subscribers go here. See my notes below on the Nikon D3s behavior at lower ISO values — stunning.

Under the Redwoods
Nikon D3s + Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar @ f/8, 15 seconds, ISO 200

Nikon D3s at lower ISO values PERMALINK

I previously reported on the stunning high ISO performance of the 12-megapixel Nikon D3s— clearly the best DSLR yet made for high ISO work, nothing except the 24-megapixel Nikon D3x comes close (maybe Canon has something in the wings, lest Nikon eat their lunch).

I’ve never seen images this good. Until you go get a D3s, you’re missing something you ain’t seen before. My only wish is that I could get this 12MP quality with more pixels, but perhaps patience will bring that wish true in a year or two. Speaking of resolution, the D3s seems to have better detail than the original D3 somehow. That’s hard to prove, perhaps it’s just an overall visual impact thing, which is just as good, if not better.

At low ISO values, the Nikon D3s image quality in some ways is even more stunning than at high ISO; images are limpid, liquid, magical, with a depth and transparency rarely seen in a DSLR. The image quality reminds me of the Hasselblad 503CWD, only distinctly more vivacious (yes, the D3s is definitely female).

At low ISO values, D3s images can accept a savage amount of unsharp masking without breaking down. No sign of nasties from electronics, just smooth goodness. The 12 megapixel resolution belies a resilience of pixel quality that stands abuse of enlargement or manipulation.

The D3s is about US$5199, still a great deal of money debauched as the dollar is, but as the end of the year approaches, professionals should keep in mind that it’s a 2009 tax deduction (consult your tax advisor). Anyway, it’s unique, and it’s a treat.

My shooting time this evening was cut short by rain and an early solstice dusk, but I made some images I will soon share in DAP at 50% of actual pixels (along with crops). The low-res jpeg example shown here does not communicate the sensory impact effectively, but perhaps it gives a hint. This was a 13 second exposure in very blue light deep in a canyon late in the day, ISO 200.

Under the Redwoods
Nikon D3s + Zeiss ZE 100/2 Makro-Planar @ f/8
13 second exposure shot in very blue, dark light

Image licensing — where? PERMALINK

I need a rock-solid image licensing agreement for licensing an image of mine to a business client. This is not my usual thing, so anyone out there who’s been through that process and has a good intellectual property attorney? I don’t want cheap, I want smart.

Buy my 21-megapixel Canon 1Ds Mark III PERMALINK

Get yourself something nice for Christmas. I’ll sell you my low-mileage near-mint Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III 21 megapixel DSLR for $4400, along with the original box and manuals. Looks like new, beautiful viewfinder, 21 megapixels.

I prefer shooting the 1Ds Mark III more than my 5D Mark II, but I prefer carrying the 5DM2! I must keep up with Canon’s latest, and the 16MP Canon 1D Mark IV cropped-frame camera is imminent, so something has to go to fund new stuff. BTW, the Canon 1 series allows me to succeed more often at lower shutter speeds than the lighter 5D Mark II.

Zeiss ZE 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for Canon samples PERMALINK

Long envied by Canon users in the know, the Nikon-mount ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar is imminent as the Zeiss ZE 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar. Watch my wish list for it to appear at B&H. Wish lists (“gear lists”) are at left, under the B&H search box. The 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar is already available for purchase.

While not available in stores quite yet, a production sample is presently mounted on my Canon 5D Mark II, and though I had only 5 minutes this evening, I snapped a few shots which show off its distinctive bokeh, or blur characteristics, which are highly unusual and beautiful, albeit not as easy to understand at this smaller size. I’ll be posted samples in my usual big sizes in Guide to Zeiss ZF/ZE Lenses.

The 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar is one of the finest lenses available today. Whether you’re shooting macro or making landscapes or stitched panoramas, the 100/2 Makro-Planar will not disappoint. And while it’s not apochromatic and will show magenta/green color on out of focus areas at wide apertures, unlike the Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R. However, unlike the Leica offering, the 100/2 Makro-Planar has a flat field at infinity, making it eminently suitable for landscapes. It also happens to perform brilliantly in infrared. I can’t think of a better all-around 100mm lens, let alone one that is both a macro lens to 1:2 as well as having an f/2 maximum aperture.

Want to see detail resolved from center to the extreme corners wide open? Then this is your lens. Few lenses can deliver the sharpness across the frame this lens can, sharpness that doesn’t waver or show field curvature. Your challenge is to exploit its amazing blend of sharpness and bokeh by focusing precisely. But that’s the challenge with all top-grade lenses.

The downside? It’s manual focus, with a silky smooth focusing helicoid, and none of the sneaky focal-length-shortening tricks played by most macro lenses these days.

BTW, after shooting the stunning new Nikon D3s, it is frustrating to see the prominent noise at ISO 800 with the Canon 5D Mark II. Maybe Canon will follow Nikon’s lead in 2010.

December Rose
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZE 100/2 Makro-Planar @ f/2

Bug’s End
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZE 100/2 Makro-Planar @ f/2

Late Buckeye Nut
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZE 100/2 Makro-Planar @ f/2

Using Apple’s Time Machine for data safety PERMALINK

Just posted is a new article in Mac Performance Guide: Using Mac OS X Time Machine for data safety. Time Machine is a valuable safety mechanism that I recommend for nearly everyone. And it’s clear from my ongoing consulting that not everyone is aware of it, or how best to use it. One should also follow a backup strategy in addition.

Time Machine preferences

Reviewed: 8GB memory modules for Apple Mac Pro Nehalem PERMALINK

Just posted is my review of the OWC 8GB memory modules for the Apple Mac Pro. Also shown are Photoshop CS4 results for the diglloydHuge benchmark, and yes, 64GB does pay off for monster files.

With 8GB modules, you can take your quad-core Mac Pro to 32GB, an option that might well prove useful as more software moves to 64-bit capability in 2010. An 8-core Mac Pro can go to 64GB, but you do need to boot into the 64-bit Mac OS X Snow Leopard kernel.

Other World Computing 8GB memory modules

Reviewed: Intel X25-M 160GB solid state drive (SSD) PERMALINK

Just posted is my review of the 160GB Intel X25-M 2nd-generation solid state drive (SSD).

Update! I’ve revised my review after updating the Intel unit to the 11/30/2009 firmware. Write speed is much improved, rising 26% to 103MB/sec over the former 83MB/sec.

A solid state drive (SSD) uses memory chips instead of a spinning disk: no moving parts to fail, silent operation (more). It’s the right solution today for solving both performance and reliability issues in a laptop. Also, an SSD in a Mac Pro is the very best way to free up all four drive bays for data — use the SSD for a boot/applications drive.

Intel 160GB X25-M Solid State Drive reviewed

The Intel 160GB SSD uses only 10% of the power of today’s low power laptop drives! A laptop hard drive can use 1.5 watts or so and half a watt at idle. Since my 13" MacBook Pro server machine uses only ~9 watts at idle, that should be a 3-10% battery life gain, and the laptop stays cooler, too. And it’s silent, a nice plus in a quiet room.

I’m still using the original (generation 1) 80GB model as the boot drive in my Mac Pro, and it has been a great choice I enjoy every day: silent, low power, and very fast. See How to Make Your Mac feel Lightning Fast. The 2nd generation model is incrementally faster, according to Intel.

An SSD offers the fastest and most reliable storage possible in a laptop. Now that I’ve been running the Crucial 256GB SSD in my MacBook Pro for several months, I can report that it exerts a powerful influence on the overall responsiveness and usability of a laptop — I won’t ever again be stuck using a hard disk. You are definitely better off giving up a few megahertz (eg 2.93 vs 3.06) and using the money towards an SSD, if cost holds you back.

Traveling on a costly trip for photography? Skip the hard drive and go with an SSD, both internal to your laptop as well as a robust external backup, like this OWC 256GB AL-Pro mini. Should you drop your laptop onto a concrete floor, the internal SSD will likely be unharmed, even if the laptop itself is mostly in pieces (provided the SSD itself hasn't been crushed, etc). And the same is likely for an external unit; no moving parts make data loss an unlikely prospect.

More reliable, much faster, what’s not to like? I’s a price and capacity issue in late 2009, but that should steadily change in 2010.

Need help? I offer consulting for setting up a “killer” Mac Pro or MacBook Pro or any Mac.

Nikon D3s compared to Nikon D3x at all ISO values PERMALINK

Just published in DAP is a still-life comparison of the 12MP Nikon D3s to the 24MP Nikon D3x. What happens when you shoot the D3x at higher ISOs and then downsample it to D3s resolution...which camera wins? (This technique is already shown in DAP in D3x vs D3 Matched Resolution)

After all, it’s a fair question: why not get a D3x for its high resolution, then at higher ISOs reduce noise by downsampling to the same resolution as the D3s: same number of pixels in the end, but the D3x is more versatile. Or is it? The results clearly show that an extra helping of secret sauce made its way into the new D3s.

My eclectic test scene is shown below. I compared at ISO values 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800 so that a clear picture could emerge across the range.

With street prices about $7499 (D3x) and $5199 (D3s), the two top Nikon cameras are very close in terms of system cost. I have a feeling that the D3s is going to have a lock on the high ISO shooting market (sports and similar) for some time to come. I’d also see it as a terrific wedding camera for its great color and low noise at high ISO, all without the annoyance of flash. A big beast that might be the ultimate street camera too, simply by virtue of shooting in the near-dark with quality. And if Nikon can extend the improvements I see in the D3s into a D3xs, Canon had better aim high. Somehow even though the D700 and D3 were good, the D3s jumps out at me as a camera that might someday be referenced as a classic, a breakthrough camera.

Will Nikon introduce a D700s mimicking D3s image quality? I think it would be foolish of Nikon to do so (as much as I’d want one). That’s because the D3s is so good that it stands alone in the world of DSLRs today as the king of high ISO— no substitute exists.

Subscribers start reading here.

Comparing the Nikon D3s to the Nikon D3x

Nikon D3s low-light shooting PERMALINK

I’ve only looked at a few frames of tonight’s shoot, but below is one I like. Great praise goes to the Nikon D3s for preserving color at high ISO, but also to Nikon’s VR (vibration reduction) in the Nikon 105/2.8 VR, a lens to which I’m taking a keen liking for its low-light prowess. Here’s a Nikon wish list with both items, and more. Get yourself something you deserve, as none of us knows.

The 12-megapixel Nikon D3s should make your mouth water if you like photographing at dusk or at night. The image below is at ISO 12800. it is not noise free, but it’s better than any other camera I’ve tried, and not by a little bit.

I’ll post another batch of high-ISO images sometime soon, right after I finish my D3x to D3s ISO comparison series, perhaps as early as tomorrow for the series.

Nikon D3s + 105/2.8VR, 1/15 @ f/2.8 handheld, ISO 12800

Nikon D3s + 105/2.8VR, 1/40 @ f/5.6 handheld, ISO 6400 pushed 2 stops (=25600)

Photoshop CS4 memory bug (Mac) PERMALINK

I found and reported over a year ago about a Photoshop CS4 bug with respect to using 32GB memory. Photoshop CS4 for Mac allows less memory to be used with 32GB installed than with 8/16/24GB.

A year has passed since I first reported this issue to Adobe, yet the problem remains. That’s some customer commitment, a whiff of it anyway.

Guess what happens to Photoshop performance preferences when you install 24GB, 32GB, 48GB or 64GB memory?

With 24GB memory

The 3072MB figure is the maximum that CS4 allows to be specified. The “Ideal Range” is erroneous advice, another pimple that remains in place from years-old code.

24GB in a Mac Pro

With 32GB memory

With 32GB memory installed (eight 4gB modules), you’re allowed only 2810MB, 262MB less than with 32GB memory. The lower available memory can degrade CS4 performance.

32GB in a Mac Pro

With 48GB memory

With 48GB of memory installed, Photoshop restricts its memory usage to 902MB less than with 24GB! Yup, with twice the memory, you get to use 902MB less.

48GB in a Mac Pro

With 64GB memory

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while: 3072MB again! Even the skeptical should now agree that there is a loose screw in CS4.

64GB in a Mac Pro

Bottom line: never assume. Weird stuff does happen. See Optimizing Photoshop and Optimizing Adobe Lightroom.

Nikon D3x compared to Nikon D3s at different ISOs PERMALINK

What is the ISO cutoff when a 12 megapixel Nikon D3s is to be preferred over the 24 megapixel Nikon D3x? I’m speaking to both noise and color rendition, and taking resolution into account as an overall impression.

Obviously a 24 megapixel camera has considerably more detail than a 12 megapixel camera, and I’ve shown this previously in my DAP review of the Nikon D3x, including just how awesome D3x files can look when downsampled to D3/D3s/D700 resolution, cleaning up artifacts and looking ultra-clean.

Soon I will be posting an all-new still-life comparison between the Nikon D3x downsampled to Nikon D3s resolution at ISO 200/400/800/1600/3200/6400. Hint: there is a clear inflection point, and it means that serious shooters will want both a D3x and a D3s. I knew I saw something special in the D3s files that I posted a few days ago, and my comparison will clearly demonstrate what is going on.

64GB memory in 8-core Mac Pro! (tested!) PERMALINK

The OWC 8GB modules are working flawlessly in both an 8-core Mac Pro and a quad-core Mac Pro (see review of Mac Pro Nehalem). See yesterday’s discussion.

Shown below is About This Mac for my 8-core Mac pro with 64GB in it. With 64GB, the Mac can boot into 32-bit kernel, but only 32GB will actually be available. Booting into the 64-bit Mac OS X Snow Leopard kernel allows all 64GB to be used. I have been using the 64-bit kernel for six weeks now, with zero problems. It is definitely perkier with the 64-bit kernel, so give it a try if your system doesn’t have something holding it back, like special hardware lacking a 64-bit driver.

A full report will follow in MPG, but I see no problems whatsoever so far with 24GB or 32GB in a quad-core Mac Pro Nehalem or 64GB in an 8-core 2.93GHz model. And that’s running Memory Tester for a while — so far rock solid. A more thorough test will “prove out” the modules, something any serious user should do when installing memory.

64GB in a Mac Pro

64GB memory in your 8-core Mac Pro! (8GB memory modules) PERMALINK

Other World Computing 8GB memory modules

Yesterday, I reported on the availability of 8GB memory modules from OWC that allow up to 32GB memory in a quad-core Mac Pro, greatly extending its useful headroom, but I lamented the fact that 8-core machines apparently had a 32GB limit.

It turns out that this might not be true after all— apparently booting into the 64-bit Mac OS X Snow Leopard kernel allows all 64GB to be used!

I have been running continuously in 64-bit kernel mode for six weeks or so now on both my quad-core and 8-core Mac Pro. They are working flawlessly, and things are definitely perkier with the 64-bit kernel, especially photo applications. So if no hardware or its driver support precludes the switch to the 64-bit kernel, go ahead, it’s worth it. An eSATA card is one possible sticking point, but I use the FirmTek SeriTek 2ME4-E and it’s rock-solid.

I have eight 8GB modules on the way for testing (on loan from OWC), so I will soon be able report directly how they behave in both the quad-core and 8-core Mac Pro Nehalem (see review).

Few users need 64GB, or even 32GB, but there are use cases for it, such as monster files in Photoshop. A future 64-bit Photoshop CS5 will be a Big Deal for users working with monster files, but lots of memory helps today with huge files even though Photoshop CS4 is a 32-bit application on Mac OS X, see Optimizing Photoshop — my groundbreaking research shows the benefits clearly.

Fast shipping for free at B&H Photo PERMALINK

Worth noting as shopping schedules get tight is that B&H Photo is offering free 2-day shipping on Canon cameras, and free overnight shipping on Nikon cameras.

Shipping applies to DSLR or point-and-shoot cameras.

Free fast shipping

Six and 12-core Mac Pro coming PERMALINK

HardMac reports on the new Intel Xeon Intel Core i7-Extreme (“i7-980X”), which should appear in a Mac Pro next year. But whether it will be January or March is unclear, and whether clock speeds faster than 3.33Ghz will be offered remains to be seen. Remember, none of this is official yet!

Most interesting as a practical matter is whether the new chip is any faster on a per-CPU basis (at the same clock speed), since very few programs can exploit today’s quad-core Mac Pro, which is already available at 3.33GHz. In other words, if you buy a 3.33GHz quad-core Mac Pro today, will the new 6-core model actually be any faster (since most cores go unused with most programs)? My guess is that the new chip might be a hair faster due to slighlty larger caches to support the six cores, and of course six cores will help with some specialty programs. Presumably the new model won’t be lower cost.

My recommendation remains the same: if you need a Mac Pro now, get a quad-core refurbished 2.66GHz model now for $2149 (faster speeds are a bit more). Consider it a “rental” — if you really must have a faster Mac next year, sell it and the net loss should be a small rental fee over the next few months.

The good news is that it appears that memory will remain at 1066MHz, which I hope means that the existing RAM will continue to work in the new Mac Pro, such as OWC’s 8GB memory modules.

32GB memory in your quad-core Mac Pro! (8GB memory modules) PERMALINK

At present, Apple sells a quad-core Mac Pro and an 8-core Mac Pro. See my step-by-step guide to how to buy and configure the Mac Pro, and why you would want to buy a refurbished one (especially now, since new models are likely coming soon in 2010). Or you can get a great deal at B&H Photo, here’s the Mac Pro that will give you 90% of the best performance for 50% of the money. Be sure to add memory and drives.

Aside from 4 vs 8 cores, the main limitation of the quad-core Apple Mac Pro has been having four memory slots (vs 8), thus limiting memory to 16GB as four 4GB modules. For most of the model lifespan, Apple didn’t even offer more than 8GB in the quad-core model. Only recently did Apple begin to offer 16GB for the quad-core Mac (at very high cost).

A 16GB memory limit is no practical limit for most Mac Pro users, in fact 12GB is plenty for most Mac Pro users. But some users can use more memory (see Optimizing Photoshop), and in the future, 24GB or more might be the cat’s meow, especially when Adobe finally stops milking its captive franchise, and offers real value with a long overdue 64-bit Photoshop CS5.

Now OWC has the 8GB module solution, thus allowing 32GB in a quad-core Mac Pro.That said, my recommendation would be going to 24GB (3 modules), thus gaining the fastest memory speed. Go to 32GB (4 modules) only if you actually need 32GB. Kudos to OWC for pushing the envelope, and extending the value of the quad-core Mac Pro Nehalem.

Other World Computing 8GB memory modules for Mac Pro

The disappointing news? Installing more than 32GB in an 8-core Mac Pro apparently does not work due to a kernel limitation in Mac OS X Snow Leopard. This is quite a surprise (who’s asleep at the wheel at Apple?), but presumably something Apple could fix in 10.6.3. Update: this might not be true after all: 64-bit kernel mode might resolve the issue.

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II review updated PERMALINK

I’ve added another field shot example to my Hot Spot page in my review of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II in DAP. I compare it to f/4 and I show both frames (with crops) at 1536-pixels wide. See yesterday’s entry, below.

Nikon D3x + 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II @ f/2.8

Two serious issues in Nikon 70-200/2.8G VR II PERMALINK

It can take time and effort to ferret out real-world issues, which is why I ignore by-the-number tests as a waste of time for real-world shooting.

Update: the replacement sample avoids the ugly hot spot of the problem lens.

I have discovered a serious issue with the new Nikon 70-200/2.8G VR II (or perhaps it’s one issue with two unpleasant side effects). For the details, you’ll have to subscribe to DAP, then go to this page of the review. I think it’s peculiar to the 70-200, because I do not observe it with the Nikon 200mm f/2 VR.

I will say here that it involves a hot spot and color shift, and could be a very serious issue for some users, perhaps the most troublesome lens fault I’ve seen in a long time, and one that affects a critical usage scenario: wide open at 200mm. I observed the problem in a variety of different field shots.

It’s always possible that it’s something peculiar to my particular sample, but I won’t know that until I get another copy.

I hereby at least temporarily revoke my recommendation of the 70-200/2.8G VR II until such time as I can test a second sample, and determine if the issue is a design flaw.

Update — To be clear, I have no hesitation about use of the lens at f/4 and smaller apertures, and the problem might also be limited to specific conditions eg the long end at far distances. For that matter, I would choose it in a heartbeat over the original 70-200mm. I have a second sample coming to determine if the hot spot occurs as a design flaw. No lens is perfect, even the Coastal Optics 60/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro has an issue under specific circumstances. But my concern is that 200mm at f/2.8 is an oft-used setting for the 70-200/2.8G VR II.

I’ve also added a brief bokeh page to my 70-200/2.8G VR II review, where I show some ugly bokeh of the 70-200VR2 — it’s often very nice, but not always.

Nikon D3x + 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II @ f/2.8

Reader comments on DAP, D3s, Nikon 70-200mm VR II PERMALINK

I thought I’d share a few reader comments.

Just a quick note of appreciation for your ongoing review of the 70-200/2.8 VR-II Nikkor. In a day where one must wade through the wasteland of complainers, whiners and incomplete or poorly conceived "tests" in many of the various online forums, it's nice to see a thorough and reasonable review of the lens, with plenty of samples, that displays and discusses the lenses imaging characteristics while neither ignoring nor over-emphasizing it's flaws. I can't imagine anyone who is considering that lens not gaining valuable insight from subscribing to DAP and then reading the review. At this moment in time, it's the best review of the lens out there. — Nashville Mike

Give DAP a try, the Nikon 70-200 VR II review is just one of many thoughtful pieces included in it. See the table of contents. See also reader comments on my Leica M9 review.

Here’s two more reader quotes:

I just wanted to say how much I appreciate all the information on your website. I thought I knew just about all there was about taking pictures, but reading your DAP columns, and your evaluations about the Zeiss lenses completely changed the way I think about photography. After reading your work, and doing much thinking, I sold ALL of my photo gear and started over with the premise that I would rather have one great lens than a few good ones. So, I bought a D700 and the Zeiss 50 and 100 makro-planars. Wow! I actually enjoy the manual focus and photos are sensational by comparison to my other gear. My main interest is in portrait work, mainly black and white, which is why I recently bought the Nikon 70-200. Anyway, keep up the good work. — Bud R

I'm enjoying your reviews immensely, not just for a decisive opinion but for their artistic quality as well. The pictures posted in the D3s review are awesome. I think most are capable of a prime space in an art gallery. I was on the line to upgrade to a D3s. I've ordered one now. — Prateek D

Nikon D3s ISO 3200 examples posted — wow! PERMALINK

I’ve added an extensive page of examples to my Nikon D3s review in DAP.

The examples are mostly at ISO 3200, though a few are at ISO 1600, and some are “pushed” from ISO 3200 by as much as two stops (effective ISO 12800).

The D3s noise and color at high ISO are stunning. I elected to post all examples as 50% of actual pixels, along with actual-pixels crops, as I feel this really shows what can be expected from the camera, particularly in print.

One word of warning: Nikon inexplicably defaults NEF to 12 bits instead of 14 bits in the D3s, so I shot all my files as 12-bit lossless compressed instead of 14-bit lossless compressed. I’m still kicking myself for overlooking that. Still, the results remain stunning anyway.

I reiterate my enthusiastic recommendation to get the D3s — in my view it’s by far the world’s best low light camera, combining noise and color rendition to stunning effect. In fact, I like it so much that I might just have to buy the loaner camera I’m testing (even though I have a D3x). See yesterday’s comments below, as well.

Update!

Click the image below to see a 1536-pixel-wide version. The examples in the DAP review at ISO 3200 are 50% of actual pixels (2128 pixels wide), along with generous actual-pixels crops.

This is ISO 3200! It’s not just noise, there is something exceptional about the Nikon D3s images, highly unusual and stunning in its luminosity and depth. This example and all the others in the review have noise reduction OFF.

Glistening Boulder
Nikon D3s + 105/2.8 VR, f/4 @ 1/40 sec handheld, ISO 3200 pushed 1/3 stop

Nikon D3s at ISO 1600, 3200 — wow! PERMALINK

I previously reported on the phenomenal low-light performance of the Nikon D3s at ISO 12800. I’ll be posting more sample images very soon, an ISO 12800 page is already present in my nascent D3s review in DAP.

Today, I shot in the forest late in the day at ISO 3200 and 1600. I am very impressed with the D3s image quality, and I wish to reiterate my previous advice: if you enjoy low-light shooting, the D3s is simply stunning, you won’t believe how good it is. At about $5199, it’s not cheap, but wow, what a workhorse it will be. It’s clearly a distinct step forward from the original D3. Get one before word gets out about just how good it really is, and it becomes hard to find!

Geniuses elsewhere have studied specifications and determined that the D3s is just a marginal step forward over the D3. I have to shoot real images and look at them real careful-like, cuz I’m not quite that smart. Shooting the D3s gives me an involuntary and rarely-experienced thrill I haven’t felt for a while, that’s a fact. It’s a camera that changes the way I think about shooting in dim light.

I wonder if Nikon will move the D3x forward with similar improvements. A 12-megapixel camera is a far cry from 24 megapixels, so if the already top image quality of the 24MP D3x can be ramped up some more as Nikon has done from the D3 to D3s, then Canon is going to need to work extremely hard.

I shot the Nikon 105/2.8 VR macro on the D3s in dim light, and it was a great combination. The astonishing quality at high ISO and VR makes shooting handheld in previously impossible scenarios a very satisfying experience. The 105/2.8 VR is a steal at about $889, and it interacts beautifully with the D3s. No noise reduction whatsoever on the image below, of course my review in DAP will have far higher resolutions as well as crops.

Mushroom forest
Nikon D3s + Nikon 105/2.8 VR, f/8 @ 1/100 sec handheld, ISO 1600 pushed 1.5 stops

Actual pixels: ISO 3200 pushed 1.5 stops, noise reduction OFF

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II review published! PERMALINK

Just published in DAP is the first chunk of my Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II review.

Lots of examples (more to follow), a discussion and comparison of focal length compared to the 200/2 VR, distortion, and a discussion of the optical problem previously noted in this blog. See also my previous notes.

I reiterate my previous recommendation that the 70-200VR2 might well be the finest zoom in its range ever made by Nikon or Canon, so go get one, but be sure to check your copy for issues at 70/135/200mm; shoot it wide open at infinity at f/2.8 to see any issues. It is a complex lens, and to deliver across the frame, it won’t do to have even a slight optical misalignment, especially on the 24MP Nikon D3x.

Nikon D3x + 70-200/2.8G ED VR II

Printing with ColorByte Software ImagePrint 8 PERMALINK

Guest author and fine-art photographer Pete Myers discusses his experiences with ColorByte Software’s Image Print 8. A trial version is available for download.

Click to read the article

Nikon 70-200/2.8G VR II bad sample PERMALINK

Regrettably, I have now confirmed an optical problem with my sample of the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, which I will document in my review with a full-resolution samples in DAP, as it is highly instructive, and perhaps of more long term value to readers than a perfect lens because it shows what to look for in general, for any lens. I had suspected a problem based on field shooting, always seeing a right-edge weakness, even at f/5.6 and f/8.

Optical problems are unfortunately commonplace with Canon and Nikon lenses, see Brand-new Blur, and my recent commentary on the Canon 100/2.8L. It is my estimation, based on using dozens of Nikon and Canon lenses, that somewhere around 30% of brand new lenses have optical problems which are readily evident on high resolution DSLRs, especially 20+ megapixel cameras. To be clear, my estimate is not a fact, it’s my personal unscientific experience; someone out there (not me) should obtain 100 samples and test all of them, then publish the results. It’s absolutely nuts seeing precision “by the numbers” reviews out there: I guess they always get a perfect lens, maybe cherry-picked by the manufacturer. Who knows.

With 30+ megapixel DSLRs likely in 2010, such optical issues will come to the fore. Zoom lenses with large numbers of elements are particularly at risk. The Nikon 70-200/2.8G VR II has 21 elements in 16 groups, so demands on assembly precision are extreme.

This all said, my gut reaction is that the Nikon 70-200/2.8G VR might well be the best 70-200 zoom yet available from Nikon or Canon. So go get one, but be sure to check it for issues at a variety of focal lengths; shoot it wide open at f/2.8 to avoid masking problems.

Do lenses leave the factory bad? Or do they go bad in shipping from the factory to a dealer, and hence to a customer? I simply do not know, but I suspect both.

The issue I see ruins a very nice comparison with the Leica 180/2.8 APO that I had shot and begun to prepare. The right side of the frame is blurred and dull, a hallmark of optical misalignment, dropping the MTF to turd-level. Stopping down to f/8 largely rectifies the issue, but at f/5.6 the right edge can be seen to be weak in relation to the left and center. At f/2.8, it’s badly blurred, but not always— it depends on where the lens is zoomed, and where it is focused! Infinity is definitely the worst case here. I ruled out a camera issue by virtue of comparing two lenses on the same camera and seeing symmetry with the other lenses.

Shown below are left and right edges at f/2.8. The subject is at least 1/4 mile away. If you want details, you can read about it in my review in DAP soon.

Left edge, actual pixels
Nikon D3x + Nikon 70-200/2.8G VR II @ f/2.8

Right edge, actual pixels
Nikon D3x + Nikon 70-200/2.8G VR II @ f/2.8

Zeiss ZE 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar examples PERMALINK

See the discussion of the 50mm f/2 and 100mm f/2 Makro-Planars further below.

I’ve been working with the ZE 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar on Canon EOS for some weeks now, and I can say it’s a thoroughly enjoyable lens, a top pick for an all-around “normal” lens. It exudes the same jewel-like build quality of its siblings, and delivers the same satisfaction in using great ergonomics, if you can stand being without autofocus. At about $1280 (available soon), it’s no casual purchase, but then again the Canon 50mm f/2.5 sits in my drawer unused.

Below are some handheld shots using the 50/2 Makro-Planar. These images and many more will be incorporated into my Guide to Zeiss ZF/ZE Lenses soon, but in much higher resolution and with actual-pixels crops, as is my practice.

Backyard Persimmon
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZE 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar @ f/8, handheld

Backyard Persimmon
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZE 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar @ f/8, handheld

A rare early December snowstorm covers the Santa Cruz mountains in the San Francisco bay area— this snow will not last more than a day. Unlike some macro lenses, the 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar offers outstanding sharpness at infinity focus.

December Snowstorm
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZE 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar @ f/5.6, handheld

The beauty of the 50/2 Makro-Planar is that you can shoot it up close or far away, with outstanding results either way, and its bokeh is exceptionally pleasing also.

Soon To Melt
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZE 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar @ f/5.6, handheld

Exception color rendition is a hallmark of the ZE and ZF/ZF.2 lines.

Soil Wanted
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZE 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar @ f/5.6, handheld

Carl Zeiss announces ZE 50mm f/2 and 100mm f/2 Makro-Planars for Canon EOS PERMALINK

Carl Zeiss today announced the ZE 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar [datasheet] and ZE 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar [datasheet], for Canon EOS. These lenses follow on the heels of the ZE 18/3.5 Distagon, the ZE 21/2.8 Distagon, the ZE 28/2 Distagon and ZE 35/2 Distagon. Canon users now enjoy the entire line in EOS mount, with the exception of the 25/2.8 Distagon, which will appear in redesigned form next year.

The ZE line for Canon, and ZF/ZF.2 line for Nikon are optically identical, so any performance comments apply to Nikon/Canon/Pentax versions. Please see my Guide to Zeiss ZF/ZE Lenses for extensive review of the entire line.

As with all the ZE lenses for Canon EOS, the mount is electronic, with full aperture control and “green dot” focus assist as with any Canon EF lens (manual focus of course).

The ZE 50/2 Makro-Planar worked accurately with the Canon EOS “green dot” focus assist in my extensive testing. Also, unlike “fast” f/1.4 designs, there is no focus shift to worry about. I expect the ZE 100/2 Makro-Planar to work equally well, and I will report on that as soon as I have a sample in my hands.

The 50/2 Makro Planar should be available soon in stores, with the 100/2 coming slightly after, see my handy wish list to watch availability, and this blog. When buying, a fresh click on the wish list ensures that this site gets credit (at no cost to you)— thank you.

Zeiss ZE 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar T* (Canon EOS mount)

Zeiss ZE 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar T* (Canon EOS mount)

I consider the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar a world-class lens in terms of sharpness and contrast. Its ultra low distortion and outstanding bokeh are additional features you have to experience to fully understand its remarkable performance. The only nitpick is that it is not an apochromatic lens, but by comparison the Leica 100/2.8 APO does not have the flat field of the Zeiss 100/2 near infinity, so pick your poison!

The Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar is an versatile choice for an all-around 50mm lens. An f/2 lens is just fine for so much shooting, without the hassles of f/1.4 focus shift, and the 1;2 macro capability makes the 50mm a go-anywhere lens. Even without the lens shade, its deeply recessed front element is a nice plus, both protecting the optics as well as defeating stray light.

MTF (sharpness with contrast) is exceptional for the 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar to the edges of the frame, though corner performance drops off sharply. However, that is typical for many 50mm designs, and in this case is due mainly to field curvature, not an actual lack of sharpness. Infinity performance is higher in the corners than seen here at 1:10. The 50/2 does have some barrel distortion (not shown), so for strict requirements choose the 100mm f/2 instead.

Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar MTF at f/4

MTF (sharpness with contrast) is truly world-class for the 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar, sharp right out to the extreme corners, a theoretical performance I’ve verified many times with a real lens. Performance wide open at f/2 is amazingly high, and combined with its highly unusual and beautiful bokeh, it’s a must-have lens.

Zeiss 100m f/2 Makro-Planar MTF at f/2

Zeiss 100m f/2 Makro-Planar MTF at f/4

It’s unlikely you’ll find any lens with lower distortion than the 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar. This makes it a fantastic choice (also) for high resolution composite images.

Zeiss 100m f/2 Makro-Planar distortion

Below is the official Zeiss press release for the 50/2 and 100/2 Makro-Planars:

Isolate Stunning Details with the New ZEISS Macro Lenses
Carl Zeiss presents the Makro-Planar T* 2/50 and 2/100 for EF bayonet

Thornwood, NY - December 4, 2009. Carl Zeiss has again applied its expertise in lens manufacturing to enable photographers to create wonderfully expressive images. With the introduction of two new macro lenses, the Makro-Planar T* 2/50 and the Makro-Planar T* 2/100, Carl Zeiss expands its existing ZE line of lenses for EF-mount cameras. Owners of EOS camera models can now create detail-rich macro images that allow the effective use of both sharpness and unsharpness to be deployed as creative elements. These fast, versatile lenses are also perfect as standard focal lengths for portraits or still life photography.

Even in tricky lighting situations such as dusk, the Makro-Planar T* 2/50 and T* 2/100 ZE create distortion-free images thanks to their extraordinary fast aperture. Whether capturing an insect resting on a flower or the moisture on a piece of fruit, these lenses allow a degree of sharpness that was hitherto impossible. Even with a maximum aperture opening and a low focal depth, the desired image can be easily isolated from its surroundings.

Both macro lenses render objects in close-up on a scale of 1:2. To enable such detail, these lenses include Carl Zeiss’s acclaimed “floating elements” design. This special lens alignment enables high optical performance across the entire focusing range, from 0.24 m to infinity as in the case of the 2/50 ZE lens. The Makro-Planar T* 2/50 and Makro-Planar T* 2/100 are currently available for F bayonet (ZF) and K bayonet (ZK) cameras. The Makro-Planar T* 2/50 is also available as a ZF.2 version. Both lens systems are optimized for analog and full-format digital SLR cameras.

The Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZE will begin shipping in December 2009 at a MAP price of $1,283. The Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZE will be available in early 2010 with a MAP price of $1,843.

Technical specifications for 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar

Focal length: 50mm
Aperture range: f/2 - f/22
Number of elements/groups: 8/6
Focusing range: 0.24m – infinity
Angular field (diag./horiz./vert.): 45/38/26°
Coverage at close range: 72 X 48 mm
Image ratio at close range: 1:2
Filter thread: M67 x 0.75
Weight: 570g
Length: 91mm
Mounts: ZF and ZF.2 (Nikon), ZE (Canon EOS), ZK (Pentax)
Lens hood included       

Technical specifications for 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar

Focal length: 100mm
Aperture range: f/2 - f/22
Number of elements/groups: 9/8
Focusing range: 0.44m – infinity
Angular field (diag./horiz./vert.): 25/21/14°
Coverage at close range: 72 X 48 mm
Image ratio at close range: 1:2
Filter thread: M67 x 0.75
Weight: 570g
Length: 115mm
Mounts: ZF and ZF.2 (Nikon), ZE (Canon EOS), ZK (Pentax)
Lens hood included          

Zacuto Z-Finder DSLR optical viewfinder PERMALINK

I personally use a Hoodman HoodLoupe for Live View use, but today a reader pointed me at the Zacuto Z-Finder, with high quality Schneider optics. The Z-Finder looks very well suited for video use. With many DLSR owners now shooting video, this might just be the ticket.

The Z-Finder is designed to mount and stay there, just as you’d want for video use, but it can also be hung around your neck, snapping into place (a frame attaches around the camera LCD). It sounds interesting, but I haven’t tried one yet.

Zacuto Z-Finder with high quality Schneider optics

By comparison, the HoodLoupe is something I hang around my neck, and use as I need it for Live View and/or viewing images after I’ve shot them, especially in bright conditions. See my Feb 11 2008 blog entry for more. The HoodLoupe is

Hoodman HoodLoupe

Reader Olivier H recommends the LCDVF, though I haven't tried it:

LCDVF

Should you use a filter on your lens? PERMALINK

I’m often asked whether I use filters, and which kind.

When I was shooting film, I maintained an entire stack of color correcting filters which I used according to the number of mireds of correction needed (micro reciprocal degrees), according to my Gossen Color Pro 3f color meter. With digital, I don’t bother to color correct via filters, except under extreme conditions, like the high mountains before dawn, because my research showed that it was not necessary.

Setting aside specialty filters (eg infrared), there are really only two types of filters I use today, and that’s because they can reduce image quality, especially if not kept spotless. See Do Filters Reduce Image Quality. Especially with top-end glass, filters are pointless in most cases except for protection, and a lens hood offers most of that.

I do use a neutral UV filter to protect the lens from blowing dust/dirt in desert areas, salt spray near the ocean, or any similar conditions. I’ve measured a variety of filters for neutrality, and some brands are simply not neutral, which means they are attenuating some part of the spectrum— no thanks. But I’ve measured the B+W filters and found them to be neutral, so I stick with those.

The other filter I’ll use is a polarizer, though I use one infrequently, because the effect often looks too much like an over-saturated postcard; I tire of that look rather quickly. But when it comes to a polarizer, the B+W Kaesseman (edge sealed) version is what I prefer— it’s a long-term investment.

I avoid anything but brass-ring filters and anti-scratch multi coated filters: to keep it consistent I have standardized on the B+W MRC line (multi resistant coating).

See my wish list of B+W filters in sizes from 52mm to 82mm.

Apple’s new 3.33GHz Mac Pro — fastest Mac yet! PERMALINK

To buy and configure a Mac Pro, see my step-by-step guide.

Recently, Apple quietly added a 3.33GHz option for the quad-core Mac Pro, a custom configuration option at the Apple Store. I recommend buying refurbished if you can (here’s why), but this new model won’t show up refurbished for a few weeks. You can also save a ton of money on memory and drives, and how to do so is covered in my buying guide.

For most applications including Photoshop and Lightroom, the new 3.33GHz Mac Pro is the fastest Mac you can buy today— faster even than the 8-core 2.93GHz model (for most applications). Configure it as I explain, or contact me for a personalized consultation.

I’ll say that again: for most purposes, the quad-core 3.33GHz model is the fastest Mac you can buy! The only exception is for well-written programs that can actually make full use of an 8-core Mac Pro; such programs are few and far between and the list does not include Photoshop or Lightroom (for most common operations). But it does include programs like Genuine Fractals. See my Optimizing Photoshop study and Optimizing Lightroom studies, as well as When More Is Less.

Apple Mac Pro 3.33 GHz

Assuming ample memory and a fast RAID to eliminate disk bottlenecks, speed is directly the ratio of processor clock speed, which makes the 3.33GHz model 25% faster than the 2.66Ghz model, and 13% faster than the 2.93GHz model. As a $1200 upcharge, it doesn’t come cheaply, but it’s still less expensive than an 8-core 2.66GHz machine, and will provide 25% higher performance for everything, all the time, regardless of how many CPU cores are in use, as compared to a 2.66GHz model.

Oddly, there is no 3.33GHz option for the 8-core model (dual CPU). With Intel’s new 6-core processor looming in early 2010, it’s possible that Apple will stick to a quad-core model at faster speeds, forcing users that want the new 6-core CPU to buy a 12-core machine (dual cpu). Then again, that might not be the case.

For most users, my recommendation remains the same: get the bare-bones 2.66GHz quad-core model at $2149 refurbished, then add memory and hard drives.

The main limit of a quad-core Mac Pro is four memory slots (instead of 8), limiting memory to 16GB, which is not a real limit for 99% of the users out there. Also, users regularly running programs like Genuine Fractals, Helicon Focus, etc might obtain more benefit overall from an 8-core machine than a quad-core 3.33GHz (see my benchmarks). But most users will find the 3.33GHz option the very best one when maximum performance is the goal, because 3.33GHz is 25% faster than 2.66GHz; an 8-core 2.66GHz machine has to “win back” 25% by using more cores, and that just won’t happen with most programs.

High quality binoculars for photographers, birders, hunters, etc PERMALINK

I’ve used a variety of inferior binoculars over the years, always letting them gather dust because they disappointed in various ways, mainly optically. They were not a pleasure to use, and/or caused eyestrain*.

Now I’m testing a pair of the green Zeiss 8X32 Victory T* FL binoculars. I chose that model for top optical quality, and an ideal compromise between brightness, size and weight. The view through them is gorgeous: very bright, crisp and clear, and totally devoid of any color fringing or artifacts even in adverse viewing conditions, such as dark branches against a bright sky. They also peer into murky areas otherwise un-seeable. I haven’t quite figured out if I want to deal with larger and heavier 42mm objectives, or 7X, 8X or 10X magnification— I’m still researching things. The 7X are appealing for a wide-field view, but 10X is appealing for the mountains across longer distance. But as it stands, I’ve never used a better binocular than the 8X32 Victory T* FL.

I’m very impressed with the Victory 8X32’s, and I enjoyed watching the crows and other birds on my bounteous persimmon tree peck away at the fruit; they always fly off when I approach. The clarity is startling, and now I see how birders enjoy sighting new species. It’s also rather interesting to examine things at relatively close range: plants, small animals, etc, and I found that doing so gave me some photographic ideas.

Zeiss 8X32 Victory T* FL binoculars

Update Dec 9: several readers have written to express strongly that in their experience eye relief is a critical factor, at least for eyeglass wearers. To explore this issue, I have some binoculars with 19mm and 20mm eye relief; the Zeiss Victory line tops out at 16mm, as does most of the Leica line.

The Zeiss 8X32 Victory FL binoculars are not inexpensive, but the good news is that there is a $250 rebate through the end of the year on many of the Victory line binoculars, and certain other models. See my list of appealing binoculars at B&H Photo .

The Victory lines comes in green and black; I slightly prefer green. The “FL” designation means fluorite, for ultra-clean imaging free of color aberrations.

Eye relief — the Victory line has eyecups that extend or retract, to accommodate use with or without eyeglasses or sunglasses. They also have diopter correction. Some models have up to 16mm of eye relief.

At least one reader states that he wouldn’t touch binoculars with less than 18mm of eye relief, which seems to rule out the entire Zeiss Victory line, and most of the Leica offerings as well, with this notable exception. I hope to see for myself by trying some brand with 18mm or 20mm or eye relief.

Magnification — I find that 8X magnification is about all I can hold steady. Moving to 10X things start to get a bit shaky for me, though I have yet to test that theory with a Zeiss offering. Mountain users might prefer 10X for longer distances.

Exit pupil — Binocular exit pupil size is really an issue for dim light. With really bright conditions, 42mm or 56mm binoculars might be too bright for comfort. A large exit pupil size is a moot point in bright light: the pupils in your eyes will be contracted to a small size.

if you’re older (40's on up), the pupils in your eyes can no longer dilate as they could in youth. The exit pupil size of a binocular is essentially the circle of light it projects, so if your pupils can only dilate to 4.5mm, a larger exit pupil is of no benefit. For someone in the late 40’s or older, a binocular exit pupil larger than 4.5mm or so is unlikely to be of much value. And the larger the exit pupil, the larger and heavier the binocular. This varies by individual physiology, so there is no fixed value, the very picky user will need to try several models.

In short, your eyes can’t make use of a large objective diameter (42mm, 56mm, etc), which is why I chose the 8X32mm models, which are still very bright, yet with relatively compact size and weight (20 oz/560g), so I will actually take them with me! As a practical matter an exit pupil in the 3-4.5mm range is a great choice; the Zeiss 8X32 Victory model has a 4.0mm exit pupil.

What I finally learned after much wasted money and time was that whether it be binoculars, scanners, bike lights or lenses, it’s best to go without or find alternatives until a quality product can be afforded. Otherwise, one just keeps buying a little better model each time, the results disappoint, and in the end you spend far more money on a series of inferior products!

Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR II examples PERMALINK

The 70-200/2.8G VR II is a very complex lens to evaluate and to pin down— no simple summary will do, yet my recommendation stands. I now feel even more safe in saying that the 70-200/2.8G VR II can produce some very high quality results.

Below are just a few of the examples which will be posted soon in DAP at the usual high resolution. In San Francisco, if you don’t like the weather, just wait a minute. These shots were taken 35 minutes apart.

Golden Gate Bridge, typical everyday foggy haze
Nikon D3x + 70-200/2.8G VR II @ f/5.6

Golden Gate Bridge, approaching storm
Nikon D3x + 70-200/2.8G VR II @ f/5.6

Golden Gate Bridge, approaching storm
Nikon D3x + 70-200/2.8G VR II @ f/8

Lens caps — eliminate fumbling PERMALINK

The first thing I do with my Canon or Zeiss ZF/ZE or other brand lenses is to toss the lens cap into a ziplock bag, then replace it with a Nikon center-pinch-style lens cap. Nikon makes 77/72/67/62/58/52mm sizes, and these can be used to replace most any Canon or Zeiss ZF/ZE lens cap.

The Nikon lens cap offers the best ergonomics; there is enough depth in the center-pinch-style design to make it easy and quick to attach, even with fingers stiff from cold.

The Zeiss design is too thin, which means I drop it way too often (over a cliff or down a crack or into the sand, etc). The Canon design is the side-pinch design, which makes me remove the lens hood to attach the lens cap. Both are a waste of time, I try to simplify my photo kit to what works day in and day out.

Here’s a handy list of the Nikon front lens caps, and a few rear caps as well, including the OpTech O-ring rear cap, which seals out dust and moisture exceedingly well. the only downside of the OpTech cap is that it fits in only one orientation, not three as with a standard cap. This is probably for maximum sealing. Mark the cap somehow, and this might help you attach it in the same orientation each time.

Update: readers suggest that the Sony and Tamron also offer lens caps that have a pinch design similar to Nikon, and I now recollect from my review of the Sony A900 in DAP that the lens cap design was good. So for sizes Nikon does not offer, the Sony lens caps can fill in.

Nikon center-pinch lens cap — best ergonomics I’ve yet used

OpTech REAR cap for Nikon and Canon lenses: O-Ring seal locks out dust/moisture

Nikon D3s low-light performance PERMALINK

Just published in DAP are examples from the Nikon D3s at ISO 12800. To my eye, these are the best high-ISO results I’ve ever seen from any camera. If you’re looking for a shoot anything, anywhere in any light camera the D3s is it! See my Dec 2 blog entry.

At about $5199, Nikon has held the line on pricing (given the crash of the US dollar), and the D3s looks to be a uniquely versatile camera. With most cameras, ISO 12800 either does not exist or produces really nasty results. Not so with the D3s, where I could consistently obtain high quality images at ISO 12800, and even at ISO 25600.

If you like to shoot in low light, don’t walk, run, and go get the D3s.

Nikon D3s + Voigtlander 58/1.4 Nokton @ f/2, 1/320 sec handheld, ISO 12800

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II PERMALINK

To clarify a comment I made in my Dec 3 entry: I said “If you need a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, this is definitely the lens to get on Nikon”.

That recommendation is unequivocal even though I haven’t put it through my rigorous testing yet (in progress): I can already see that the 70-200/2.8G VR II fixes the problems with the original version (special report in DAP).

That doesn’t mean I’m recommending the 70-200/2.8VR2 on an absolute basis, but I am saying that it is the best option if you need a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom on Nikon. To equate it to my converted Leica 180/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R is good for giggles, but a 70-200/2.8 autofocus zoom is a heck of a lot more versatile, and there are other qualities to be investigated too, such as distortion and bokeh. So all things in perspective!

Which Firewire 800 card reader? PERMALINK

If you’re lusting after a fast Compact flash card, you’ll want a fast card reader too. High frame rates and/or more megapixels mean that a fast card can make a camera feel much snappier than that 2-year-old CF card you might be using.

I’ve been using the SanDisk Extreme Firewire 800 for perhaps two years now, and it has worked flawlessly for me on my Mac Pros and on my MacBook Pro when I travel. I particularly like its compact rectangular design; I carry it with my laptop and a 6" Firewire 800 cable and a 2.5" external backup drive.

     

Firewire 800 card readers (not to scale)

I just tested the SanDisk Extreme Firewire 800 reader against the Lexar Professional UDMA Firewire 800 card reader, and they both tested almost exactly the same, so speed is not a consideration, at least not with the SanDisk cards I used for testing.

The Lexar offers two Firewire ports, which is a big deal if you want to run more than one reader at a time, but have only one Firewire 800 port on your laptop or iMac. The Lexar is also significantly bulkier, which I dislike for travel, and I’m dubious about its slot and eject mechanism; I prefer the smart simplicity of the SanDisk unit.

But remember, the Firewire bus is shared, so with fast cards, dual readers will max out the bus anyway. Furthermore, many laptops hard drives won’t even keep up by around 80MB/sec, so dual fast readers with fast cards isn’t going to gain you much except the ability to slot in two cards and go do something else (worth it for some, I’m sure).

Using the SanDisk Extreme Pro cards (“90MB/sec”), I observed 54MB/second sustained writes and reads using both Firewire 800 readers — a far cry from the claimed 90MB/sec, but Firewire 800 itself rarely exceeds 80MB/sec in the Real World, so I’m happy with 54MB/sec.

With an 8GB SanDisk Extreme IV card I observed 32.5MB/sec writes and 39.2MB/sec reads in both readers.

SanDisk Extreme IIi 16GB cards turned in a sluggish 10.7MB/sec writes and 13.6MB/sec reads (both readers). If you’ve been out hiking all day, that’s just too annoyingly slow when you want a quick review of images and some shut-eye.

Remember that in-camera speed could vary widely with the camera and specific card, so you might want to check out Rob Galbraith’s excellent database of cards and card readers, keeping in mind that you are likely to see speed variance from card to card, just as with hard drives.

You can view my picks for cards and readers here .

New diglloyd.com server — please report any issues PERMALINK

If you’re reading this, then you’re seeing the new diglloyd.com server, which should be really boring, since it it should act exactly the same. Please report any issues, thank you. Issues could mean bad links, pages that don't show, etc.

Nerd note: no change in internet IP address, but the backend servers have changed, and this is not a server running using a hard drive, it uses the second generation Intel X25-M. The first-gen model is reviewed here.

ZF.2 lenses for Nikon now in stock PERMALINK

Looks like the new crop of Zeiss ZF.2 lenses is now in stock at B&H Photo.

Read about the differences between ZF and ZF.2 in my November 19 blog post. I also go into more detail in Guide to Zeiss ZF/ZE Lenses, which covers the original ZF line for Nikon, the Canon ZE line for Canon EOS, and I’ll be adding examples and tidbits as I use the ZF.2 lenses more. However, ZF, ZF.2 and ZE are all optically identical, varying only in mechanical features.

Zeiss ZF.2 Lenses just arrived!

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II in progress PERMALINK

I’ve started shooting the new Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II, which arrived today, courtesy of B&H Photo, this site’s trusted and recommended vendor.

The “II” version seems a bit more compact than the original. Optical performance is unquestionably superior to the original version at the long end, which is not to say that it’s better than a fixed focal length lens, but that discussion is much more complicated than “better or worse”. If you need a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, this is definitely the lens to get on Nikon, so go get one now at B&H Photo.

Performance at f/2.8 is very good, but it looks to me like this is really an f/4 - f/8 lens if you want to extract maximum detail and contrast on the 24 megapixel Nikon D3x. From what I can see, it’s not a replacement for the 200/2 VR in several ways. But that discussion will be entertained in my review in DAP, and it’s a preliminary conjecture based on limited shooting.

Today I shot comparisons to the Nikon 200mm f/2 VR, Nikon 180mm f/2.8D EDIF, Nikon 105mm f/2 DC, and Zeiss ZF 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar. Shooting takes a modest amount of time, but analyzing and providing quality comparison takes 10X longer. Subscribers to DAP will be the first to learn what I find, as I don’t want to jump to any conclusions, certainly not for such a complex lens.

Focal length — the images below were all taken at the 200mm setting of the 200VR2. Observe that the image size shrinks as focus moves closer, which means that the 70-200VR2 reduces its actual focal length. This is expected for an internal focusing lens, it’s a trick that goes part and parcel with such optical designs. The practical effect is that working distance from camera to subject decreases as one focuses closer. I personally consider this effect much ado about nothing for most uses; all lenses have compromises, whether it be focal length, field curvature, distortion, etc. But video shooters will find this “breathing” so troublesome that might make the lens a non-starter.

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR

Nikon D3s— see-in-the-dark game-changing marvel PERMALINK

The new Nikon D3s arrived today, courtesy of B&H Photo, this site’s trusted and recommended vendor. Given B&H a try— I’ve not found a more reliable vendor, and their prices are always highly competitive.

Holy crap— this D3s sees in the dark! I owned and loved my Nikon D3 for 18 months or so, but I sold it in August, knowing that new things were coming and having too many cameras at all once, including the Nikon D3x. Anyone want to buy my 21MP Canon 1Ds Mark III?

Tonight I felt a thrill and excitement in shooting the D3s that I hadn’t felt in a while! I’m pretty jaded in camera land, so that’s saying a lot. Something about ISO 12800 looking darn usable. But do forget about ISO HI-3 (102,400) it’s a bullet point, not a usable setting. I find that ISO 12800 hits the limit of where focus can be achieved without a flashlight anyway.

It’s freakishly fun to be able to shoot at ISO 12800 handheld at f/1.4 - f/2.8 at night. Very cool stuff. Tonight I used the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 Nokton, reviewed in DAP.

If you like to shoot in low light, run, don’t walk, and go get the D3s now (thanks for using my link, so I get credit, too). I haven’t used the new Canon EOS 1D Mark IV yet (soon), but the 1DM4 is a 1.3X crop sensor, and nothing in the current EOS line can touch the D3s high ISO performance. The original D3 is outstanding as well, but the D3s just feels better, Nikon has made some improvements in usability.

Actual pixels — ISO 12800
See crops further below

The new D3s is different enough that it’s not an instant switch-over from the D3. For one thing, the Live View button is now a dedicated button, not a dial, a correction of the idiotic design used on other Nikon models (eg D3x), which make it a mode on the mode dial. I use Live View a great deal, so this is a BFD*. A compelling use for Live View is focusing accurately at dusk or night, where autofocus is often worthless and it’s too dim to focus by eye. Especially compelling since at dusk/night one must often use a wide aperture hence very little depth of field.

While HD video is a nice addition to the D3s, and some will like that a lot, I wish there were a master “disappear video warts” setting, so I could really just ignore the fact that it’s a feature.

The image below was processed using RAW Developer 1.8.4. All noise reduction was disabled. Noise is readily visible, but it’s incredibly innocuous and film-like noise, not the nasty streaking and mottling I continually see with my Canon 5D Mark II (even at low ISO).

Actual pixels — ISO 12800, all noise reduction OFF

Actual pixels — ISO 12800, all noise reduction OFF

* BFD = Big Fantastic Deal, uh huh

SanDisk 64GB and 32GB Extreme Pro 90MB/sec cards PERMALINK

Today I tried out the new SanDisk Extreme Pro CompactFlash cards in my Nikon D3x, a Nikon D3s and a Canon 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III.

    

Click either card to view prices

The Canon 5D Mark II and Canon 1Ds Mark III both formatted and worked without a hitch with the 64GB SanDisk Extreme Pro card. So did the Nikon D3s.

The Nikon D3x formats the 64GB card, but refused to operate with it, flashing a “Cd” error. I hope Nikon clues in here and fixes this. The Nikon D3x did work just fine with the 32GB Extreme Pro card. Update: This was fixed with the January 2010 firmware update, but it came after I returned the card, so I could not independently verify it. The Nikon D3x did work just fine with the 32GB Extreme Pro card.

All the cameras felt speedy with the cards, much more responsive than my 16GB SanDisk Extreme III cards. With the Nikon D3s, once the buffer fills up, the San Disk Extreme Pro was able to maintain what seemed to be twice the frame rate of the Extreme III, a big deal for sports shooters (I didn’t actually time it, but it was substantially faster).

My feeling is that sports and wildlife shooters should be looking at the Extreme Pro cards (assuming a current camera that can make use of them), but most shooters can do just fine with the regular “Extreme” or “Extreme III” or “Extreme IV” cards.

On the flip side, DSLRs might soon be heading towards 30 megapixels, medium format makes humongous files, and these new Extreme Pro cards will be good for years to come, so it’s not a bad idea to get the fastest cards now, especially if you might upgrade to a new camera in the next year.

Remember, if you shoot a Nikon D3/D3s/D3x, you can set the camera to record the same files to both cards, thus making an in-camera backup, a great idea for travel if you don’t want to carry a laptop. You can do this with Canon EOS 1D/1Ds also, but you’ll need one Compact Flash card and one SDHC card, ugh.

For your convenience, I’ve prepared a list of these two cards and others of different sizes and speeds at B&H Photo. I personally now stick to SanDisk, because I’ve had no trouble with them for several years now.

New Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II coming tomorrow PERMALINK

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR

I should be receiving an evaluation copy of the Nikon AF-S 70-200/2.8G ED VR II tomorrow, courtesy of B&H Photo (in stock ).

I’m hearing some positive things about the new “II” version, but I’ll of course put it through its paces in my own fashion, especially at the crucial apertures of f/2.8 and f/4.

The original Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR was a dud on the full-frame Nikon D3/D3x/D700, but the new “II” version promises better things, and that is good, because the day of 30 megapixel DSLRs can’t be far off now.

I expect the 70-200VR to be used primarily in the 135-200mm range, so that’s where I’ll be focusing my efforts. Whether the latest VR (vibration reduction) is more effective will also be of interest. The VR technology is an area I researched in The Sharpest Image, now part of DAP— recommended reading for VR and much more.

Guide to Zeiss ZF/ZE Lenses updated for ZE 35/2 Distagon PERMALINK

To my Guide to Zeiss ZF/ZE Lenses, I’ve added two new pages of examples for the Zeiss 35mm f/2 Distagon: Mountains, and Criticality of Infinity Focus. The latter study should be of benefit to anyone and everyone using a manual focus lens.

Silver Creek Canyon Cottonwood
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZE 35mm f/2 Distagon

Like, the 28/2 Distagon, ergonomics of the 35/2 are outstanding. For my hands, the ZE 28/2 and 35/2 Distagon are an unusually nice match for the Canon bodies in size and feel; just about perfect.

Update: on paper, the 35/2 Distagon is fairly close to the 50/2 Makro-Planar in terms of coverage, but in substance the two lenses shoot very differently in terms of close-up range, distortion, and field of view. So I personally have no issue having both the 35/2 and the 50/2. However, if you’re looking for a triplet of lenses spanning a widely-spaced range, then consider the 21/2.8 Distagon, 28/2 Distagon and 50/2 Makro-Planar (50/2 not yet available for Canon). Fill that range in later with the 35/2 Distagon once you get a feel for the “gap”. If you’re shooting a 1.3x or 1.5X crops sensor, then the 35/2 becomes your “normal” lens, and 50mm become a short telephoto.

See my wish lists at B&H Photo for all the Zeiss ZE and Zeiss ZF.2/ZF lenses (see all wish lists at left).

Take a stroll to the November 2009 blog.