BrianRicePhoto.com

Fun with COB’ing Backgrounds

admin — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:50:52 +0000

Showing how it’s possible to do realistic looking green screen photography. Granted, the original was not shot against a green screen, but the basic concept of cutting out the background and overlaying the subject onto a new background remains. The first two pics are of the helmet cut out and the background prior to having Gaussian Blur applied in Photoshop at 122 pixels. The third pic is the original, and the fourth pic is the final product.

My wish list, January 2012

admin — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:44:55 +0000

With some recent acquisitions—the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR 1 and a 32″x40″ Softbox among them—I was thinking about some future items on my list when I decided to write them down. It’s really rather shocking that there are so few items, but what’s even more shocking is the grand total: less than $2500 at the top end. See below:

• iPad $499
• Eye-fi SD Card $99
• Softbox grid $40
• Einstein strobe light $500
• 50mm lens $200-$500 either f1.8 or f1.4
• 85mm lens $300-$500 either f1.8 or manual 1.4 third party
• Greenscreen software $100 to $300

Total $1738 to $2438

Surely I am forgetting something; a lot of somethings. But irregardless of those missing items, the ones listed above are the ones on my radar, and so occupy top billing. The bottom three items are variable depending on the specific model/brand I would choose. Plus there are rumors they may be releasing the iPad 3 in the coming months, and so the currently iPads will be marked down. My main motivator for an iPad is the ability, coupled with the also-listed Eye-fi SD card that transmits wirelessly, to send images directly from the camera to the iPad for viewing larger images on location instead of relying on the LCD on the back of the camera (I’m also an avid reader and so would love to have a larger screen to read than my iPhone, which itself is quite adequate for that task already).

I don’t really have a priority on any of the above; any purchases will probably be piecemeal and opportunity based (ie, sales, etc). I’m curious to see how the new forthcoming Nikon 85mm 1.8G lens performs before I decide on that, but I’m also swinging back yet again into some 50mm prime lens love. Ah, so fickle…

That’s more like it…Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR 1D

admin — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 20:27:09 +0000

Ah yes. So I finally came full circle so to speak, manned up, and after selling the unsatisfactory 80-200 2.8, I got my hands on a used Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR 1 for a great price. I had rented the lens before, and some of those pics appear in the gallery below, along with some newer ones (featuring my dad’s new pup Lenny).

This is the lens I should have manned up and got in the beginning, instead of scrambling around and renting lens after lens after lens as my telezoom fill in after I sold the old Tamron 70-200 over the summer. I hate to even begin to calculate how much money I spent on rentals, as well as purchasing the 80-200 and selling it for less…sheesh, I might have been able to afford the new version of the 70-200 with that money spent. On the other hand, it gave me the opportunity to shoot with other lenses, notably some 85mm 1.4 primes and the 105mm 2.0 and 180mm 2.8, so that curiosity was satisfied.

So is this one. This lens is one of the finest lenses ever produced and even though it’s no longer made (having been replaced by said newer version), it’s a great bargain used. I got mine for less than $1300 and at most it’s got some scuffs on the body but the glass is fine. It’s a shame Nikon doesn’t (or hasn’t yet) come out with a nice affordable alternative to their top of the line 70-200 telezoom, the way Canon does with their non-IS/4.0 offerings. Yes, they do still produce the 80-200 2.8 but, yeah, see my previous post on what I feel about that lens.

So there you have it. This is a terrific lens that’s razor sharp at 2.8 zoomed all the way in to 200mm with gorgeous bokeh. And don’t forget that 3-stop VR.

Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 EF-D Review

admin — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:36:04 +0000

This review is more of an explanation of why I ultimately decided to sell this lens after owning it for a couple of months. So right there you can guess what my final verdict is on the Nikon 80-200. Which is a shame because I really wanted this lens to work out.

What it came down to for me was its glacially slow autofocus and really soft images at 200mm wide open. I had never really paid attention to autofocus speed on my lenses in the past, but my experience with this one really slammed the value of it home for me. I had owned the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and was able to live with its slow autofocus–it doesn’t have an internal focusing motor, either–but maybe my needs as a photographer have changed enough that it’s unacceptable now.

As to the softness of the lens wide open, this was the dealbreaker for me. When I saw the results at 200mm and 2.8 for the first time I was convinced I had a bad copy. Incredibly soft and hazy in addition to having low contrast. I even shipped it to Nikon for them to look at and got it back with a note explaining that, because it’s an older lens design it’s not optimized for today’s digital slr’s, blah blah blah, but they cleaned it and insisted it was up to factory specs. Well, I guess there’s that for piece of mind.

Now, It wasn’t totally crap every time at 200mm wide open; just maddeningly inconsistent, with some shots being more acceptable than others. (See samples of both full pics and their 100% crops below. Perhaps many of you will have no problem with them. All of them, except the last two, were zoomed in to 200mm on a D700. The last set, of the little girl, were shot with a D7000 at 125mm, or the equivalent of 187mm when accounting for the crop factor.) What I did notice was that it was far more consistent and really sharp zoomed out to wider than 150mm, even at 2.8. Images shot this way were very good and acceptable. Also, stopping down to 5.6 finally yielded acceptably sharp results at 200mm (that’s two full stops from its widest aperture).

In short, this can be a fine lens as long as you’re willing to work within its limits. I’m neglecting some other details about this lens that are positive–namely it’s tank-like build and its quality bokeh (something which I demand on such a lens). If you limit your zooming to wider than 150mm (or stop down to at least 5.6 at 200mm), and if you accept that this lens will never be a good sports lens (ie use it for portrait/studio work only), this lens is up to the task. Ultimately, though, I decided I needed something that I wouldn’t have to compromise on. And I decided that VR would be something I’d be better off having in the long run, as I’ve appreciated its utility when I rented the Nikon 70-200 lenses (both versions) for pro work.

Sample images.

Video clip (temporarily) added to home page

admin — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 02:14:46 +0000

You’ll notice on the home page that I’ve got a video clip of Kansas City-based U2 tribute band Rattle and Hum on auto play (ie, when you first click on the page or refresh it, it will start playing from the beginning). I’m about to redesign the Rattle and Hum website that I built in 2008 and create a WordPress-based site, and one of the things I want to carry over is that automatically playing video…which means I had to find a plug-in for WordPress that would do this the way I wanted it to. My experience with learning WordPress and customizing made me worry that it would be a painfully painful experience, but in this case I got it all figured out in under an hour. (In computer-code time for me, that’s the equivalent of about five minutes.) So posting it to my photo home page was a good means of testing the plugin.

So anyway, for those seeing the video or becoming aware of it for the first time through my homepage, I shot the footage on a Canon 5DM2 throughout the fall and winter of 2009/2010. Since I only had the one camera that could shoot video at the time, I had to shoot the band performing the song (“Mysterious Ways”) at various shows over four months or so, each from a different angle. Hence any lack of consistency with clothing or setting as the video switches between shots. I then took the footage and edited it in iMovie, syncing it to a studio recording the band made of the song in 2007. Each cutaway of one angle to the next required me to resync the audio so the singing and instrument playing lined up accurately. Finally I added a fake reverb to the audio track in order to create a more live feel to the music. (This sadly did not fool any of my sound tech friends, who didn’t seem to get the point of why I did it.)

So that’s the story behind that. I will probably take it down once I complete the updated Rattle site, but I will leave it here on this post for posterity

[vsw id="CS1-YIkGHb8" source="youtube" width="425" height="344" autoplay="no"]

Doubling down

admin — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:37:12 +0000

So after my extensive blog this week on my personal observations/experience with both Canon and Nikon (see previous blog), in which I expressed some degree of wistfulness about my switch last year (from Canon to Nikon), I doubled down that same night and purchased a Nikon D7000 as a backup/second body to my kit.

I hesitate to use the term “backup” exclusively because I have often shot events/gigs with two cameras simultaneously, one hanging from my neck and the other slung over my shoulder. Nevertheless, it’s nice to have a second camera I have faith in, as the old D90 was never a favorite camera of mine despite its reputation. (I had sold the D90 a few months ago with the intent of rolling over the money from that sale into a D7000, but put it off until now, making due with borrowing another D90 or renting a D7000 as a second camera for big events.)

For some reason I never really warmed up to the D90. I think mainly because I never used it in well-lit conditions and almost completely as a backup; it was always when ISO 1600 was needed, which by today’s standards the D90 is very subpar for my tastes. Also, even though I am not a heavily involved video shooter, the D90s mediocre video always turned me off.

The D7000 on the other hand, is a camera I can easily see myself confidently using as a main camera if I want to go lighter than the D700, or if I just want to utilize the crop factor to extend the “reach” of my lenses. Not to mention the much improved video abilities will be a nice thing to have once again. (Though I’ll be the first to acknowledge that in order to take truly great video you have to really COMMIT to buying the right supplemental gear, like microphones, steady cam grips, etc; but regardless, it’s a nice thing to have in order to take the odd random candid clip for posterity’s sake.)

WIth the unfortunate natural disasters that have hit Japan (March earthquake) and Thailand (October floods) this year really stifling Nikon’s production, I got the sense that supplies of all camera makers’ goods may potentially be scarce in the coming months. Some, like Canon, are less affected than others, but Nikon in particular has been hard hit, with new dSLRs like the D700 replacement being evidently pushed back to next year. I decided that I’d better get a second camera sooner rather than later, especially with the holiday season imminent. The D7000 was always number one on my list (wistful glances back toward Canon notwithstanding).

My ultimate wish has long been to see the D300s replacement released in order to gauge the quality of that camera, and downscaling from a full frame camera/crop frame combo (D700/D7000) to two crop frame cameras (D400 and D7000) as my kit, mainly out of my desire to have one set of lenses match each camera focal length-wise. As it is, my 24-70 turns into a 36-105 on the D7000; acceptable in a pinch but not nearly wide enough for my needs long term. A Tamron 17-50 2.8 (NON-VC) is the leading candidate as an affordable mid-range zoom for the D7000 eventually (the Nikon 17-55 being far too expensive for what would just be my second camera; unless the eventual D400 does motivate me to switch to all crop-frame).

Not that I’m dissatisfied with the D700 by any stretch; it’d just be nice to have one set of lenses match both cameras (and a second D700 is unaffordable). And boy, does that full frame sensor produce beautiful images at ISO 1600 and 3200; cleaner even than a crop frame’s ISO 800. (Most of my shooting is in lowlight conditions shooting bands and events, so excellent ISO capability is non-negotiable; sorry D300s and D90.)

But for the near to midterm (through next spring), I’ll be happy with the D700/D7000 combo; at least until Nikon (and Canon, gasp!) release their latest line of dSLRs. I’m curiously anticipating what the D800 and D400 cameras will be like (as well as Canon’s 5DM2 and 7D replacements). If production in Asia is back up and running soon for the camera makers, 2012 should be pretty exciting (and long overdue, dSLR-wise).

The switch from Canon to Nikon, One Year Later: An Assessment

admin — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:10:20 +0000

As many people familiar with me (and/or my blog) may remember, last fall I switched from Canon to Nikon. It was a decision nearly a year in the making, and based mainly off of some frustrating autofocusing issues I was experiencing with the Canon 7D. To quickly recap those: inconsistent results; some days razor sharp, other days I couldn’t get a sharp photo to save my life. I also owned the 5DM2 and while there were not focusing problems with that, it’s autofocus system was a bit outmoded. I was therefore drawn to Nikon’s reputation for autofocus prowess, as well as its wireless flash reputation.

So in October 2010 I made the (logistically agonizing) switch from Canon to Nikon. One thing I accepted was that I was going to own less gear for my money. Part of that was because I was selling my Canon gear used, obviously, part of it was eBay/Pay Pal and shipping fees eating into my profits, and part of it was, while the camera bodies are fairly equal in price, Nikon’s lenses are generally more expensive. And I was fine with that.

Now having shot with Nikon for the past year (after shooting with Canon the previous six), I do feel pretty qualified to lay out the differences between the two and which provides a better value.

Let me just say that, if I had to do it over again, I’m not sure I would have made the switch.

That’s not a comment on Nikon or Canon; simply a statement that neither is clearly superior to the other.

At the time I was very excited to make the switch, and I can’t say I really regret doing it, and in any case I can confidently say I went down that road and I know for sure. But lay me lay down my observations:

Nikon’s flash system is superior to Canon’s
This one isn’t in doubt. The user interface in wireless controlling off-camera flashes is awesome. You can also individually set each individual flash group to either manual or ETTL (or any of the other settings Nikon offers that I never use) separately from the others; with Canon I believe all must be set to ETTL or Manual. Also, switching on the fly from Commander mode to Remote mode or regular mode is conveniently done by switch on the SB-900. Which suits me great because when I’m shooting events I’ll often have some off camera flashes set up, but may want to take a party pic with just the SB-900 so it’s really convenient to switch over. With Canon, on the 580EX II you have to press and hold down a button for a few seconds to be able to do the same thing, which is not as convenient.

Also, the SB-900 comes with a diffuser and filters in order to match the color balance of the scene. The filters include a chip which tells the camera (if it’s a newer model from the D700 or D300s onward) to match the white balance accordingly. This is awesome. The newer mid-range SB-700 improved on this by providing plastic snap on filters which are more convenient than the flimsy filters that can be difficult to fasten on the SB-900. Canon’s flashes don’t currently offer this feature so you have to manually tape or velcro the filters on, and set the white balance manually. You also have to buy a diffuser (Sto-fen OmniBounce) separately. Not a deal breaker by any means, but just a couple extra steps for Canon, but it’s a great feature to have if you’re a Nikon shooter.

Nikon is far more consistent in delivering sharp photos than Canon
At least the copy of the 7D that I owned, which I had to send to Canon’s repair center twice to fix a horrible back/front focusing issue. They eventually got it fixed, but that still didn’t stop me from having “off nights” with it, which, while it’s possible it may be user error on my part, I could never tell anything I was doing differently on an off night that I wasn’t doing on a good night. I always felt my copy was “tainted” somehow, lol, which didn’t inspire confidence during the time I owned it.

Again, I’m sure many people will question my shooting technique, etc, and there are times I have out of focus pics with the Nikon, but my experience has been better with Nikon.

Another point I should add is that I did not find Nikon’s ability to lock in focus to be any superior to Canon’s, however. Remember, a Nikon D700 or D7000 only has crosspoints in the middle section of the mirror/sensor, not the sides. Even in daylight I find difficulty in locking in focus using those, the same as I had with the 5DM2. The 7D did have cross points everywhere which was great and locked in fast no matter which focal point was used (inconsistent results notwithstanding).

Nikon has better, more customizable features
First and foremost, one or two Function buttons (depending not the model) on the front of the camera. This is a useful feature to have, one which I use to activate the off-camera wireless settings from the camera, instead of having to go through their menu. Nikon also offers the ability to switch out which wheel controls the shutter, aperture, etc.

Nikon has long had wireless flash control from pop-up flash
As referred to above, it’s great to be able to remotely control a flash without needing a master flash mounted on camera. The D700 has an advantage here over the 5DM2 because the 5DM2 doesn’t even have a pop-up flash. Canon finally added this feature with the 7D (and later 60D), so it’s less relevant now. I would note, however, that on the 7D, accessing the menu to get to the control features was more cumbersome, while as stated above, I was able to set it as a custom button on Nikon.

Auto-ISO is better with Nikon
You can preset the ISO range as well as the settings at which the ISO will increase with the Nikon. For example, if you were shooting aperture-priority with the ISO at 200, you could set the auto-ISO to kick in and increase at a specified shutter speed. Canon’s auto-ISO was far more convoluted, although they began to make improvements with the 7D (though not as good as Nikon).

Now for some things in Canon’s favor…

Canon has better and more responsive customer service
This is a feature that I don’t think gets enough attention when people are making a decision on what brand to buy. But believe me, when you have a problem with your gear and need it fixed, it becomes critical. Especially if you’re a paid photographer as opposed to a hobbyist.

In my time with Canon, I perhaps sent gear in to be fixed/cleaned about five times at least. And each time I received the gear back within two weeks of the day I shipped it out. And I didn’t even have a pro membership that offers expedited service.

The first time was when I had my original Digital Rebel’s sensor cleaned in 2004. And they got that sensor cleaned with no problems.

The second and third times was when I sent a Canon 430 EX to be fixed because it got blown over on its stand outdoors and landed on concrete and stopped working. There were scratches and even a nasty little chunk that was clearly visible to even the most cursory glance. Even though it was still under warranty both times it was clearly impact damage, but both times Canon fixed it without charging.

The fourth and fifth times was with the aforementioned 7D. Now the first time they did not fix the back focusing problem, but they did get it right (to my satisfaction) the second time. What is worthy of note about this instance was when I was on the phone with their customer service rep. He was incredibly knowledgeable about the repair process and explained clearly and concisely what was going to happen and was incredibly helpful. The second time I sent it back I called and got a different person, but while this conversation didn’t involved specifics, she was very helpful in informing me that the camera was in shop being fixed right then. So even though it took them two times to get it right, I felt my concerns were addressed forthrightly.

Now with Nikon, my experience is not as extensive, but illuminating nonetheless. One of my SB-600s was dropped — though still in its case — onto concrete and stopped flashing, even though it would still power on. I didn’t see any scratches or other “impact” evidence, and the flash was still under warranty, but Nikon apparently could tell it was impact and declared it was therefore out of warranty and charged me $144 to fix it (the flash cost $220 brand new when I bought it). Contrast that with Canon fixing the 430 EX for free TWICE when it was clear there was impact damage. At this point I am still waiting for it to be fixed and sent back, and I shipped it 13 days ago from the time of this blog post (remember with Canon I always got my gear back within 14 days). UPDATE 11.10.11: I checked the status of this repair online just now, and it now records the SB-600 as having been shipped, retro to 11.07.11. In other words, it took three days for them to update this fact online.

Also, at the same time I sent the SB-600 in, I also sent a factory demo Nikkor 80-200 2.8 EF-D lens that I was experiencing some poor results from at the long end at 2.8. Some softness is to be expected for this lens at 200mm and 2.8, but after referring some pics to other 80-200 owners online I decided to send it in. This repair is under warranty, but like the SB-600 I am still waiting for it to be completed 13 days after shipping it. Their online repair status page has listed it being “In Shop” since last Thursday. I’m not sure about you, but when I read “in shop” I assume that means it’s on the table being fixed right then, but apparently it really means just that it’s in the “repair process”…whatever that means. Last night I called their customer service, and while their guy wasn’t rude, he didn’t seem to have any more specific info and didn’t exactly seem approachable to being prodded for such info.

Canon’s higher range cameras offer a joystick on the back to easily move the focal point around by thumb
Nikon has a flat pad on the back which is not as easy to use; this might be the one feature I miss the most from Canon.

Canon’s white balance and ISO buttons are more conveniently located
You can set these with your right hand, while on the Nikon you have to use both hands since those buttons are on the left side. For me that means I was able to make changes without taking my eye out of the view finder, while I always have to do so with Nikon.

Canon has better video
I’ve dabbled in video, although it’s dropped off since I switched, mainly because the D700 doesn’t offer video and the D90 (when I owned it) wasn’t very impressive. The D7000 does offer improved video, although I can’t vouch for it, so for this I’m going mainly from my experience shooting video on the Canon alone. The fact of the matter is, most aspiring videographers shoot with Canon when they are using a dSLR for their work.

Canon has better lenses at better prices
And now we come to the biggest reason I’ve come to reconsider switching. Lenses. I can tell you from direct experience that Canon’s offerings of the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 are far, FAR superior to Nikon’s versions…and they are cheaper. I literally just looked online and the 85mm 1.8 is $65 cheaper for Canon, and the 50mm 1.4 is $90 cheaper for Canon. I found the Canon versions to be much sharper wide open with superior bokeh.

Across the whole range, Canon’s offerings are significantly cheaper and while the 17-55 2.8 was more or less equal between the two, the Canon 17-55 2.8 is about three to four hundred dollars cheaper and features image stabilization.

As for the telezoom range, I mainly owned the Tamron 70-200 2.8 when I owned Canon, although I did briefly own the Canon 70-200 4.0 non-IS (I sold it to get the Tamron because I wanted 2.8). I also owned the Tamron 70-200 on the Nikon side too, until I recently switched to the aforementioned 80-200 that is current “in shop” (ahem). I have rented the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR (both versions I and 2) and was very satisfied with those lenses; in fact, the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II might be the single best lens I’ve ever used (though I’ve never used Canon’s, to be sure). However, while Canon’s current 70-200 2.8 IS II is the same retail price currently as Nikon’s, they offer a non-IS version that is a full grand cheaper, and Nikon doesn’t currently have a model to compare (except, arguably, the 80-200, which is still in production but was designed for film back in the 90s before digital broke; that or a used Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR 1, but even used that lens is still a few hundred dollars more expensive than the Canon non-IS 2.8). Canon offers four 70-200 models, f4.0 and f2.8 models, with or without IS. Those are a lot of options at a great range of prices (if one can live with f4.0 without IS, the 70-200 f4 lens at about $650 may be the single best value in ANY lens out there). Nikon doesn’t offer a 70-200 f4 model currently, although they recently submitted a patent for one (but that doesn’t guarantee an eventual release of such).

So there you have it; my (very) objective assessment of the two camera makers. I should also add, that when it comes to image quality there really is no significant difference between direct camera lines (ie, D700 vs 5DM2)–although I think the Canon 7D is probably superior to the Nikon D300s, but not the lower-range Nikon D7000). At high ISO settings, which I shoot concerts and party pics at least at ISO 1600, again both camera makers produce quality images. Naturally the full frame cameras outclass the crop frame cameras there, but again neither camera maker is overwhelmingly superior to the other.

The Verdict

Would I switch back? I hate the thought of going through the process of selling all my Nikon gear and (re)purchasing Canon. The thought makes me groan. I guess that’s another way of saying I’m not sure it’d be worth it to go through the effort. Would I have switched from Canon in the first place knowing what I know now? Now that’s another question. Based mainly on my experience with their customer service versus Nikon and what I feel are Canon’s superior lenses…probably not.

What would I recommend to newbies who (often) ask me what camera they should buy? What I already tell people is that both camera makers entry-level cameras and consumer lenses are basically equal (I always recommend that newbies start out entry-level until they gain skill and to make sure they get into it enough to justify spending the money on more expensive gear), so having said that I tell them to choose based on what some might call frivolous reasons: Which feels more comfortable to hold in hand, and, honestly, which they feel looks cooler. Honestly. All other things being equal at that level (except Nikon’s entry-level cameras’ inability to use non-motor lenses), what else is there to come down to? Except perhaps customer service, which in my experience falls squarely into the Canon camp.

Does this mean I regret switching? Not actually. It’s something I think I would have felt curious enough and compelled enough to try eventually, so now I know. And let’s face it, the D700 is a great camera no matter how you cut it, even today, as is the 24-70 2.8 I use most of the time. And as someone who often uses Nikon’s wireless flash system, I benefit from that all the time. But I figure that most photographers will never use wireless flash extensively (newbies are not experienced enough and pros will inevitably prefer strobes to hot shoe flashes), so that’s a benefit mainly to me (though I recently acquired my first Alien Bee 800).

Update 11.10.11: So yeah, the same night after I post this blog initially, I end up doubling down and buying a Nikon D7000 as my backup/second camera

Smugmug adds Facebook posting, thus completing wishlist

admin — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:36:26 +0000

While I maintain my website and blog via WordPress, my main photo galleries are posted (and link to via my WordPress site) to smugmug.com. Because I have the Pro smugmug account, I have been able to take advantage of features like advanced customization and very importantly setting print prices to make a profit.

One thing that had long been lagging on Smugmug was the ability to post galleries and individual photos directly to Facebook. As in posting an actual Facebook gallery; previously you could only post a link to Facebook which would take them to Smugmug, which was not the ideal option since it is my view that not everybody likes to jump to another website when they’re in FB. Not only has that been corrected, but you can also set the captions of each pic to include a direct link to buy prints of the photos. This will save an incredible amount of time on the back end as well as increase the visibility of print options available to viewers.

In the past I’ve had to manually upload photos separately to FB, which can be laborious, and even more excruciating would be to manually include separate links to buy each individual prints. Past solutions have been to include a note to buy prints from my site, but it was easier to set it to go to the gallery only; now not only does the Buy link that Smugmug automates take you directly to the photo it’s captioned to, but it takes you to the Buy page and starts the ordering process immediately. This is awesome.

Telezooms and Primes

admin — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:51:58 +0000

I recently sold my Tamron 70-200 2.8 lens. Optically it was a nice lens, but it was horribly slow at autofocusing, plus on my D700 it would often “freeze” in that I could get no response from it, not be able to shoot at all, so I’d have to turn off the camera, remove the lens, then replace the lens and turn on the camera. This was pretty frequent, which was maddening. That and I became aware of the need to have a telezoom that had image stabilization (“vibration reduction” in Nikon-speak). I often shoot in low-light conditions, including weddings, and the lack of VR became a real drag. So I got rid of the Tamron, which means I’m down to one lens, the Nikkor 24-70 2.8, for the time being as I rent various candidates and try them out.

I’ve been bouncing between whether to get a prime lens for the extra fast aperture, or the convenience of a zoom, fixed aperture or variable. What I’ve rented in the past couple few months includes:

Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR 1: Maybe I got a bad copy, but the VR didn’t seem to work well at all. Very frustrating to shoot with, and effectively no better than the Tamron. UPDATE, October 27th, 2011: I rented this lens again earlier this month and was much more satisfied with my experience. I would definitely be happy to own this lens. Not quite up to the level of the VR2, but for a few hundred dollars less (if found used), definitely a great alternative.

Nikon 85mm 1.8: I briefly owned this lens earlier this year but sold it as I never used it. A desire to revisit that focal length, plus the 1.4 version being out of stock at the local camera rental store, led me back to this for a week’s rental. Adequate, solid, good, cheap…but it’s no 1.4…

Nikon 85mm 1.4: Finally back in stock the following week. However, the autofocus at 1.4 is spotty; many times I’d believe I was locked in on the subject properly, only to see the background in focus instead after I took the shot. I even used the AE-AL button on the back with my thumb to hold the focus in place, which did help, but still not 100%. Very odd.

Sigma 85mm 1.4: I’ve read rave reviews about this third-party lens as a viable alternative to the Nikon versions. Images looked great but…same exact autofocusing problems as the Nikon. What gives? Is it a 85mm 1.4 issue that would be a problem with any such lens, no matter the manufacturer? The Nikon 85mm 1.8 (nor the Canon 85mm 1.8 from when I shot Canon) displayed this issue. I don’t think I can cope with such a huge inconsistency with a lens like that.

Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II: WOW. This lens is special…and it had better be for being more than $2000. Spot on focus, spot on sharpness, beautiful bokeh…really makes me want to start saving up some $$$$…out of all the lenses listed, this one is clearly the best. But oh so expensive.

Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR: Trying to convince myself I can settle for giving up a fixed 2.8 aperture for the sake of saving some $$$. It’s a fine lens, and zoomed in it produces outstanding bokeh, as well as good sharpness…and is less than $600…but it’s still not 2.8, and it’s useless for low light shooting. Is it worth it to use exclusively as a portrait lens, instead? I’d still miss that 2.8. Owning this for everyday stuff but renting the 70-200 2.8 VR II for major jobs/events is an option.

So now I may rent the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS (optic stabilization). Trying to see if that would be an adequate alternative to the Nikon version I loved; about $700 cheaper. Also thinking about renting a 105mm 2.0 and/or a 135mm 2.0. One of my ideas was to buy the 70-300 and a prime…but I guess together they’d add up to one Sigma 70-200 (if I deemed that adequate). Some might suggest the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR I, but as I wrote above, my experience with it was less than satisfying.

UPDATE, October 27th, 2011: I ultimately opted for a factory demo copy of the old Nikon 80-200 2.8 EF-D (note that there are many different models of this lens; this is the one that is currently still in production and can be found online with ease for about $1100 to $1200 brand new). Since I couldn’t find a copy to rent, I figured that it would be find to outright buy given the reviews I read. Unfortunately it seems to be a bad copy which was sorely soft and hazy at 2.8 at 200mm; moreso than what’s to be expected. I am shipping it to Nikon to have it recalibrated or whatever and will have another update when I get it back and have been able to shoot with it again in a couple weeks.

Snoop Dogg (and the frustrations of shooting major recording artists in concert)

admin — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:50:48 +0000

So I shot Snoop Dogg’s concert at the Crossroads KC earlier this week for Ink Magazine, and actually I was really there to take party pics of the crowd as well as shots of Snoop. Which was fine and I did that, and it was a good crowd. But while people may think what an awesome thing it must be to be able to shoot someone as big as Snoop Dogg, shooting a major recording artist in concert is incredibly limiting.

For starters, you get only the first three songs to shoot. Which, quite honestly, is all you need to get a standard “Yep, that’s Snoop Dogg on stage” shot. But often times in my concert-going experience, some of the best photo ops happen later in the show, when the crowd and the artist/band are really kicking it into high gear at the peak of the show. But I guess that’s not what I’m there for when it comes to “why” I’m there. I’m just there to document that, again, Snoop Dogg did indeed appear on stage that night

The "Yes, that is Snoop Dogg on stage" photo

Secondly, you’re stuck in what’s called “the pit” with a bunch of other photographers. The pit is basically the area a few feet in width that separates the crowd (by a low wall) from the stage and is manned by security to make sure nobody rushes on stage. While it’s nice to get so close to the artist, you have absolutely no mobility and really, how many variations of the same shot from the same angle do you really need? And even more distressing, how in the hell do you differentiate yourself from the other half-dozen or so photographers you’re sharing the pit with?

"Hey everybody, I'm really here on stage..."

Again, I see that it’s not really feasible to get access on
to the stage (much less backstage) to take pics. But it illustrates the limitations that come when you’re dealing with a real life bonafide star as opposed to a local cover band who’ll gladly let you climb on stage to take pics for their entire show (I’m spoiled that way). So do I dislike shooting major artists with these limitations? Well, perhaps to some degree. It’s certainly not as much fun as when I can do whatever I want with the Zeros or 90 Minutes. It does sound impressive to tell people I shot Snoop Dogg, I guess, but I also realized I certainly wouldn’t do it for free unless it was a band/artist I was a real big fan of.

Lighting truss accidentally getting lowered...

As an interesting side note, somehow the front lighting truss was accidentally lowered during the middle of the first song (see pic above). This was evidently an accident and I don’t really think anyone was in any real danger, because it was coming down verrrrrry slowly, and so for that reason I’m guessing somebody accidentally hit a switch that lowers it so the lights can be placed in storage afterward (I’m guessing)…but security and Snoop’s management were completely bewildered and almost panicking as they shoved us photographers out of the way to “safety” two separate times. Weird.