Being the thoughts and writings of one Gustaf Erikson; father, amateur photographer, technologist.
More stuff can be found at gerikson.tumblr.com and Flickr.
Photography
I was going to write some sort of retrospective for the year but didn’t really have the energy. This sort of thing should be prepared throughout the year, otherwise the memory is influenced by the happenings in the near past.
Anyway, I found that looking at the images I have posted to Flickr brought back some memories, here is a view.
This year’s blog posts are here. And if you can stomach it, here are my tweets for the year…
Happy new year, everyone!
Evening light in Hammarby Sjöstad, shot with a lens from 1971. Sometimes you just want to shoot something pretty.
Many people enjoy shooting sports. I am not one of them.
Every year the company I work for has a bandy[1] match during lunch. I can avoid actually exerting myself on the ice by being the designated photographer.
Last year my only long lens was the Nikkor-Q 200mm ƒ/4, a manual focus lens from the late ’70s. I’ve since acquired a Nikkor 70-200mm ƒ/4 AF lens, and thought that now having zoom and autofocus would make my pictures even more awesome[2]
However, it was not to be. Perhaps counterintuitively, I got more shots I liked with the tele prime. This was due to three factors. First, I had a better vantage point (halfway up a set of bleachers). This year, the match was played on the side of the pitch without bleachers. Second, it was colder this year which made concentrating on the game harder. And third, the fact that last year I only had one focal length and manual focus meant I concentrating on the goal areas as they gave a better framing and I could pre-focus.
This year I was trying to capture both play at the endzones and in the middle distances. Whether it was the cold, or the vantage point, or the fickle light, I felt I got less keepers this year despite “better gear”.
[1] it’s never called “Russian hockey” in Sweden
[2] for “even more awesome”, read “slightly less pathetic”
The Nikon lens information page is a great resource for Nikon nerds. With its help and a serial number you can check to see if the 28mm ƒ/2.8 AI-s on offer on Ebay really has a 0.2m close focus or if it’s an inferior version, just to offer one example. Another cool feature is the number of lenses made.
A few days ago I was motivated1 to have a look at how many lenses of different types have been made through the ages. I was specifically interested in primes vs. zooms. To this end, I munged the data from the site and scrunched together some data. The entire result it up on Google docs.
Some cool facts:
Feel free to have a look at the stats yourself! I’ve put the text source here.
1 read: someone posted something on a forum that made me mad.
I’ve recently acquired two new pieces of kit for my Nikon D200, the MB-D200 battery grip and the Nikkor 35mm ƒ/1.8 AF-S DX lens.
I like the grip, even if it adds significantly to the weight and bulk of the D200. But it lets me shoot verticals easier, and it significantly extends the battery life of the D200 (one of the camera’s weak points!). It also enables the camera to hang flatter against my hip when hanging by its strap.
Drawbacks include the strap getting in the way of the viewfinder, and that it’s hard to hit the exposure lock button from the vertical position.
I’ve only had the 35mm for a few days but so far I like it a lot. 35mm on crop is equivalent to a 52mm field-of-view on a film/FX body, and as most of Nikon’s 50mm lenses are really 52mm this gives you the classic slightly-longer-than-normal “50mm” look. The fast max aperture gives you nice thin depth-of-field if that’s your thing — the closer you get to your subject, the better in this case — and it’s pretty small and light, good things in my book.
Niggles include no aperture ring (not gonna see those on new Nikkors in the future, though) and lack of focus scale. On the plus side it’s “real” AF-S (with instant manual override) and it’s damn cheap - barely more expensive than a kit zoom. Nikon should really make kits with this for new cameras, if only to shut the prime purists up.
Pics made with the lens will be showing up under my 35mm ƒ/1.8 AF-S DX tag on Flickr!
A fundamental[1] tenet of agile programming is DRY, “don’t repeat yourself”. In online photo punditry, of which this is a lame example, no such maxim exists; in the interests of increased page rank and -views, people all over the place repeat the same tired platitudes that have been common wisdom since at least, oh, 2003.
I too dreamed of making my infinitesimal mark upon the face of the online world, earning applause from that tight-knit circle of mutual admiration that shall remain nameless (remember, there is no conspiracy). But the days flew by and I did not plonk my ass down to decry the current cult of wide-open, wide-to-normal angle portraiture, which implies a fast lens and also pleasant “bokeh”[2].
The demand arises, if an online whining can be dignified by the term, when you use such a lens to take a portrait, instead of a medium-to-long tele as God intended you to do.
As you’re a lazy kind of guy, you invariably get a ton of background in your shot, which can be distracting. And instead of drawing the obvious conclusion and either changing your lens or Heavens forbid changing your composition, you want — nay demand — your expensive superfast lens to have good bokeh.
Note that good bokeh and a well-corrected lens wide-open seldom mix. This is a fact of optics, of which I know very little, but in my role as pundit this does not matter.
But I don’t have to develop this theme, complete with veiled barbs against the current status quo and implied superiority of my own position, because the estimable Dante Stella already did this long ago. So read what he has written, and repent. You may then send your Nikkor 35mm ƒ/1.4 to me for safe recycling.
[1] or is it? D-mned if I know, I just read blogs.
[2] this is where I should insert a paragraph explaining the origins of the term “bokeh”, its different pronunciations, and offer some pictorial evidence. That is, if I was a pundit as described in the first paragraph. But I won’t, because I assume you, dear reader, know how to use Google.
The good light has been sparse this winter.
This year’s Fotomässan (Photo Fair) was this weekend, and I popped over there, beneath a sky the colour of a gray card, to see the sights.
I went alone, my companion from last year having renounced photography entirely, so I didn’t have anyone to chat with regarding the prints that were exhibited.
Of the exhibits, some stood out. I enjoyed the way-out-there watch photography of Thomas Monka, and a reportage about four women with cancer. There was also some humorous and unusual wedding photography by Mark & Marianne. The portraits by Thron Ullberg were also very good technically, but they drew most of their attraction from their subjects, well-known Swedish artists and filmmakers.
Marcus Bleasdale had a large number of prints from the depths of war-torn Congo. Unfortunately, like so much else warporn photography the people in the pictures were just presented as savages with AK-47s, or as silently suffering objects. I do know that the Congo is in a very bad shape, but these people have names, and histories, and simply presenting these images without them removes some humanity from the subjects.
There was a lot of gear, of course. I fondled the Leica M9 — too large and smooth to be easily hand-holdable in my hands. The m4/3 brigade was out in force, with Panasonic and Olympus showing their new models. Of the existing cameras, I think I was most intrigued by the Ricoh GR-D III with the external viewfinder, a very well-built and compact package.
All in all, it was fun, but not as compelling as last year when I had more gearlust than money. Now I have some money for gear buying, but I know it won’t make my photos any better.
Currently I own the following glass (Nikon mount unless noted):
Bodies: D200 ($857), FM2n ($57), F90 (free with the 35-70).
Speedlights: SB-400, 3 x SB-24 (one on loan)
(Dollar values based on an exchange rate of 7 SEK == 1 USD.)
I’ve started a FAQ for the #photogeeks
channel on
Freenode. You’re welcome to use the comments to
this post to offer suggestions or flame!
I recently picked this lens up for about $20 with shipping from the local auction site. I’ve been looking for a replacement for my Nikkor 18-55 kit lens which bit the dust (literally) about 2 years ago and which has been hors-de-combat since then, at least where AF is concerned.
So, I’ve been keeping my eye out for a cheap replacement. This Sigma has a screw-drive lens, not HSM, which probably drove down the price.
Compared to the Nikkor, this one has a lot of advantages, build-wise. Sure, it’s plastic, but it has a metal mount and a focusing scale. The manual focusing ring is also less awful than on the Nikkor.
I haven’t compared them side by side, but I get the feeling that the Sigma is more compact.
Image quality wise I think they’re on par. I notice more CA from the Sigma, but I might be more critical now than when I had the Nikkor.
However much (or little) I paid for the Sigma, it still feels just adequate in handling (just like the Nikkor). Even if I know intellectually that the images from the lens will be indistinguishable from more expensive lenses, the plastic feel and lack of aperture ring put me off. I bought it as a party and travel lens, and though I’ll try to get it out and about and take great images with it, it will never be my primary lens.
Part of the fun and frustration of participating in the photographic community online is dealing with gear nerds. Of course, you don’t have to deal with them at all. Most photographers don’t care less about equipment beyond what’s needed to get the image they want. Arguably, this should be the goal of all photographers.
However, gear is fun, and so is discussing it. That’s why I hang out in the gear sections of the forums I frequent, because let’s face it, looking at random pics by strangers is about as fun as getting stabbed in the face with a rusty knife.
Gear unites, however. You don’t have to be a good photographer to discuss gear — on the contrary! To discuss photo gear, you only need an internet connection and copious free time, two things that in combination guarantees your photos will stink. You are in no way obliged to own or even to have handled the gear under discussion. Appeals to authority (dpreview.com, Bjørn Rørslett, K*n R*ckw*ll) are not only common, they’re the basis for all discourse.
A surprising amount of people switch systems (between Nikon and Canon, the other marques are only worthy of scorn in this exalted company) and only then realise that the lens they ABSOLUTELY must have doesn’t exist in their new system, something a quick Google could have told them For switchers from Canon to Nikon, the refrain often goes
I need fast, wide primes
Granted, as a Nikon shooter I’m kinda envious of Canon’s fast 35mm and 24mm lenses. But you know what? I don’t need them, and I can’t afford them. They are throwbacks to an earlier era. If you’re a working Nikon pro, you’re using the “trifecta” (another combo prevalent among people who hang out in forums instead of actually taking pics), the 14-24/2.8, the 24-70/2.8, and the 70-200/2.8.* Primes? Not flexible enough these days.
So, ƒ/2.8 is the new ƒ/1.4, thanks to improved light sensitivity in recent films and digital sensors. That extra speed isn’t really needed. **
OK, so these zooms are big and heavy, but Nikon makes a series of ƒ/2.8 primes (14, 20, 24, 28) and one 35/2. But these are slammed because they lack AF-S focusing, aspherical elements, or other “must haves” that only matter to forum wankers. The fact is, these lenses are perfectly fine stopped down to ƒ/8 when shooting landscapes and the aforementioned extra sensor speed obviates the need for faster apertures in low light.
So, armed with these facts, one can stop the endless cycle of gear wanking, right? Wrong! Arguing about expensive gear online a social experience. If photo gear didn’t exist, these people would be arguing about cars, or fly fishing rods, or operating systems. The best thing is to ignore the wankers and shoot some pictures instead. You’ll find your gear is more than adequate for your photos.
Here’s a recent shot I made using a Nikon D200 and used 24/2.8. Is it any good? Maybe not. Would it be better if I had better gear? Definitely not.
* all of these lenses are big, heavy and expensive. A surprisingly common theme on forums is that people who own these lenses don’t use them as they’re too bulky. And yes, I know that the 70-200 vignettes on FX cameras and will lead to Nikon’s downfall unless it’s replaced yesterday, godammnit!
** And before someone says “smaller depth-of-field” let me counter with, a) wide lenses have large DoF anyway, and b) using DoF is a crutch used by those who cannot compose.
Back shooting digital after a spell with film. I love the instant feedback and the clean colours.
Due to the draconian luggage restrictions of Ryanair, space was at a premium when we flew to Spain for a 10-day holiday. I decided to just take the following photo gear:
This combo worked great. I almost never used the pancake, mostly because it’s angle of view is too restrictive for general photography. The 24 has an angle of view similar to a 35mm on a “full frame” SLR, and I found it worked admirably as a wide normal.
The only issue with the 24 is the barrel distorsion. This can of course be fixed in post with the right software (software I don’t have btw) and is only really noticeable in architectural shots.
I didn’t miss an external flash. The built-in was good enough for when I needed fill.
The kit fit in well in my backback with the ghetto camera insert.
If I’d had more space (and spare cash) I’d probably have bought a D700 with my 35-70/2.8 and the pancake, but just using a prime was rather liberating.
I always thought fall was an Americanism, but it turns out it’s older and more “original” than autumn, which is from the French.
Great tag for remembering daylight savings changes: spring forward, fall back.
This camera is old and reviewed to death, so I’ll just limit myself to the observations I’ve made during the last 2 weeks, compared to my previous DSLR, the D40.
The camera is bigger and heavier than the D40, but not horribly so. It’s a bit harder to carry one-handed with curled fingers, and it feels fatter to hold. But this is outweighed (literally) by the feeling of quality and heft from the metal body. Very nice.
(Not so nice: the front rubber grip is starting to come loose, a very common problem on nearly all higher-end Nikons).
The shutter release and sound is much more distinct, and the added weight seems to help in keeping the camera steady.
Controls — oh my! It’s a joy to be able to change ISO, filesize, metering pattern, whitebalance etc with just a button press and some command dial fiddling. Actually, the only things really lacking in the D40 are
Otherwise the cameras have much the same feature set. But the D200 is much more convenient to use once to move out of the “auto-everything” comfort zone, just because everything is accessible.
Autofocus — yum. I’ve discovered that going manual focus for its own sake is just a waste of time. If your lens can AF, use it. I’ve been using the AF-ON button to AF and decoupling AF from the shutter release, it’s working fine so far.
Exposure — in today’s tech-heavy photo world, you tend to miss the really important things, such as the fact that the Matrix exposure in Nikon’s DSLRs is really really good. This said, the D200 is better than the D40. There’s none of the weird overexposure that the D40 used to expose for the shadows. The D200 usually nails the shot.
Flash — the built-in one on the D200 is pretty anemic. Of course this shows mostly in indoor shots when the built-in looks like crap anyway, I haven’t had the opportunity to try fill-flash. But the D40’s flash was better.
Lens compatibility — no contest. The D200 wins hands down. Not only does it autofocus with all AF lenses (not just the latest ones with internal motors), you also get metering with manual focus lenses (AI spec or later). While the D40’s simplified mount means it has an amazing mount compatibility, it won’t meter with any lens that doesn’t have a CPU. Going meterless is fun, sure, but it’s not fun for action shots where the light changes fast.
After two weeks with the D200 I’m very happy with it. It’s certainly not as easy to use as the D40, but if you have a modicum of knowledge and patience it’s a fine photographic tool.
I sold my shares in the mothership, along with the D40, and now I’m the proud owner of a new used Nikon D200!
Obligatory cat test shot:
I’ll have a review of sorts up in a while.
I just got hold of my latest Tradera purchase, a Nikon E-series 135mm ƒ/2.8. This lens is in much better condition than the 24mm Nikkor I recently bought, thankfully.
It’s a nice compact lens with a neat little integrated hood. The E-series have been critisised for not being up to the Nikkor standard of build, but compared to today’s plastic fantastics it feels wonderful. The focusing is pretty stiff ompared to the 24, but it’s more like my old Zuiko so I can’t say I’m unused to the feel.
Some test shots are up on Flickr. Pay no attention to the exposure errors, I’m learning. I think this lens has some definite potential for indoor available light shooting if I rack up the ISO, and I’ll be happy to investigate the different perspectives available with this little telephoto.
Oh, in other news, I’ve sold my Sigma 30mm ƒ/1.4 to someone more likely to appreciate it.
Update 2008-02-27: The rumours are true! Here’s the site for the modification. Sounds doable if you are handy with a soldering iron and don’t care squat about your camera’s warranty.
Basically you hardwire a lens chip to you camera and turn it on to fool the camera into thinking you have a chipped lens. Before exposure the chip is activated, and the camera meters.
Original post follows:
There are rumours that someone has found a way to get the Nikon D40 to meter with manual lenses. Here’s the dpreview.com post.
If this turns out to be true, and not too expensive, it will definitely be something for me. I’ve recently purchased a Nikkor 24/2.8 AI-s to try out on the D40. I don’t know if metering is such a big deal in the long run, but it’s the one thing that’s keeping me eyeing the D200.
Here’s hoping!
Update 2008-02-25: apparently the hack is both hardware and electronic (source, the daily updates on Ken Rockwell’s site, no permalink). I guess that makes it slightly more complicated than just a firmware hack, that I had naively hoped for.
Two lenses. 15mm difference in focal length, 42mm in physical, two stops, 230 grams.
Guess which one will be on my camera in the future? Autofocus is for wusses…
On Friday I purchased my new used lens, a Sigma 30mm ƒ/1.4 prime.
It’s fun using a lens with such a large maximum aperture: natural light photography is possible without bumping up the ISO.
The Sigma is pretty big and heavy, a change from the featherweight 18-55 kit lens. The petal lens shade nearly doubles the length of the lens when mounted on the camera.
The angle of view for this lens is equivalent to that of a 45mm lens on a 135-format camera. This is a little wider than the “normal” 50mm and I’m not really used to it yet.
This Sigma is the fastest prime that’ll autofocus on the D40. If I’d had a Nikon with a screw-type AF I’d perhaps gone with a 35mm ƒ/2 instead. That’s a smaller lens, but the smallest camera which has that AF is the D80 which is chunkier than my camera. Life is full of trade-offs.
Ken Rockwell has a damning-with-faint-praise review here. Some other reviewers have gotten lenses with misaligned focus. I did some improvised testing and it seems to be OK.
Here’s a pic of Viking with this lens. He looks sad, but he’s actually just thoughtful.
We hit Gröna Lund yesterday to have some fun before the summer definitely ended.
I’d borrowed a Nikkor AF 70-210mm ƒ/4-5.6 from David. The AF doesn’t work with the D40. I liked having more reach than with my 18-55, but the short end at 70mm is pretty long.
I tried taking some action shots with it, but manually focusing is hard in a fairground.
Here’s a portrait of Viking’s oldest cousin. Shot at 70mm, the focus is good, probably because I used 1/250 as a shutter speed.
Here’s a portrait of his youngest. This time I was down to 1/80 which contributes to the blurry pic.
Here’s Viking on a ride. Nice soles!
The 70-210 is too heavy to confortably handle on the D40. Focusing was surprisingly easy though. Apparently the ground glass of modern DSLRs are optimised for slower lenses, which helps when focusing manually.
If I’d get a telezoom I’d probably go for the cheap-n-nasty 55-200 AF-S VR.
I turned in the Nikon for repairs today. It could take more than a month before I get it back. I’m seriously considering shelling out for a compact to tide me over.
I could also get the OM-1 out of the locked closet and shoot some film.
I don’t know how it happened, but sometime during last night’s office party the built-in flash on the D40 stopped working. Right after that, darkness descended, and I couldn’t get evidence of the shocking things happening around me. Better luck next year, when I hope I’ll get the SB400 Nikon promised me when I bought the camera.
The Nikon D40 and D40X will mount a lot of Nikon lenses.
Autofocus is only available with AF-S and AF-I lenses (the ones with internal motors).
Metering is available with AF and AI-P lenses (“CPU lenses”).
AI-s and AI lenses will mount, but won’t meter.
See this page for a good overview of the alphabet soup that is Nikon lenses.
The following lenses will bust your camera and/or lens, according to my D40 manual:
If you want more autofocus functionality, get the Nikon D80. If you want more metering, get the D200.
So it’s been a week since I bought my D40 and so far I’m satisfied. I’ve tried photographing as much as possible, taking the camera with me whenever possible. Having a big SLR is pretty unusual, and seems to lable you as a “photographer”. I try to keep it discreet, but I’d like a smaller, faster lens. The light weight of the camera is really appreciated.
(As an aside, people who borrow the camera invariably try to use the rear LCD as a viewer when taking pics. How quickly things change.)
I love the ease of use, the previews on the rear LCD rock, and the auto-ISO feature is really helpful. It’s still a miracle to me to just twiddle a wheel and see the shutter speed and aperture change magically.
The built in flash is great for fill-in lighting, less so for lighting up people in dark rooms.
Unfortunately, the D40 is not compatible with many older Nikkor lenses. I knew this when I bought it, and I still can’t decide whether this is an issue for me. A lot of Nikkor lenses are only available in manual focus, and the focusing screen is optimised for autofocus (i.e., no split level rangefinder or microprisms).
I need another battery pack. I was excited about trying it out in a “real world” situation, a show the kids at Viking’s daycare were putting on, but I just got a few photos in before the camera dies on me. Apparently the power indicator showing a third of a battery left means “change batteries now!”, and not that you have a third of a battery to shoot with.
Of course, a new battery costs about 10% of the camera’s original price. Welcome to the SLR money pit.
I’m considering getting a Sigma 30mm ƒ/1.4 lens, for available light shooting. It’s pretty large, and is reporting to have focus issues (really important with the shallow depth of field) but I still think it’s the next lens for me.
I also need a better strap, and a bag… looking forward to a trip to a camera store, credit card in hand.
I’m researching online photo galleries, and will look into using the Gimp for photo editing.
(Ironically, there are no pics, because I don’t have anything to photograph it with.)
When we were planning on selling the house, I promised myself that I would get a digital SLR. So I’ve spent happy weeks researching stuff on the web, spending money I didn’t have. When it looked like we weren’t going to get as good as price as we’d hoped, I was doubly depressed, because I had been looking forward to it so much. There’s a lesson there, I think.
Anyway, it turned out as good as we’d hoped, so I felt I could spend up to 10,000 SEK on new stuff. Mmmm, stuff…
In the end, however, I decided on one of the cheapest cameras, the Nikon D40 kit. I paid 5,500 SEK for mine retail, it’s about 500 SEK cheaper online. If I register with Nikon I get a flash for free.
I chose Nikon because even though I have a thing for Olympus, I’m not really sure they’ll survive the brutal competition in the digital camera marketplace. I realise I’m doing my bit in undermining them by not buying their product, but so it goes.
I also don’t have a significant investment in optics, so I might was well start from scratch. Canon and Nikon are more or less equivalent, I chose Nikon because I perceive them as the underdog in the DSLR wars.
The reasons for the D40 were:
I chose the D40 over the newer 10 mpx D40X because 6 mpx is plenty enough for me.
Pros so far:
Cons:
I’m using a 1GB SD card which was only about 150 SEK. The store didn’t have any clear UV filters, so I had to drive around town looking for one yesterday.
The included strap could be better. I’m looking for an alternative, perhaps something I can wrap around my wrist so the camera can be held in my right hand.
I’d also like a good bag, but preferably one whose styling didn’t scream “camera bag”.
I need to research alternatives when it comes to manipulating and storing pics online. I have a Flickr account but I also have my own box. I’d like simple software that will allow me to upload the pics and produce smaller versions and thumbnails automatically.
Test pics (reduced size) are up on Flickr now.
