Sunday, October 28, 2012

Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AFS vs Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR

The Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S vs Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR


Having owned both these lenses, I felt Ill talk a bit about their slight variances, & how they are still my favourite lenses for Image Quality.

Firstly, there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with either of these lenses. If you are on a budget, buy the one thats cheaper! Mind you VR will cost extra & is very worth it, but if you are squeezed, get whats cheapest. VR or the lack of it on my other lens hasnt been a huge deal for me.

If youre on a very tight budget & have a camera body that has a built-in auto focus motor, then buy the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D. You will be hard pressed to find anything optically wrong with it. Just ensure your camera has a built in focus motor. This lense will not auto focus with cheaper entry level bodies like D40/D60 or D3000/D5000 & related series. D90 & upwards you will be fine.

Short answer, if you can afford either, get the VR version. Its lighter, slightly faster focus, tad less focus hunting when there is too much subject motion, & has VR.
It also has a tad nicer bokeh to my personal taste as compared to the 80-200 AF-S. Bear in mind bokeh is a personal thing.

I would think the new VR II version would be very similar to this. Have any of you got an ideas on the new version. Please tell us your findings.

The bokeh of these 2 lenses at f2.8 is better than the 50mm f1.8 or even the 50mm f1.4.
Those tend to be much brighter & sharper. but I like the clean & more warm subject isolation I get with the type of bokeh this lens in particular has.

I like the subject isolation, bokeh & colour rendition of these 2 70/80-200 f2.8s so much that I dont mind walking back 10 metres away just to get a picture with this lense, albeit looking retarted in the eyes of other amateur photographers who use instead of their 50mm f1.8 / 1.4 prime

What do you think? Please do share your thoughts. Whats been your favourite large aperture (fast) lense; prime or zoom, & what do you like about it, & what do you use it for?

Happy Photographing :)

A review of PP3DP UP plastic prototype 3d Printer

A review of The UP! 3D printer by PP3DP


I have not owned any other 3d printer except this one, but Ill share some personal experiences & tips.
The pp3dp site lists them for US$1500 odd, but you can get them in NZ from 3d printing systems for a much dearer amount. Saying that, you get the local support, which, trust me, you will most certainly need.

The 3d prints are acceptable quality, especially for standard geometric shapes, but when it comes to detailed intricate textures or artistic curves, this style of 3d print technology isnt still quite there.
The UP! printers are perhaps the better ones around, so this is not criticism about the product but more so the technology as a whole in its current state.

If you want small object with intricate detail, for example, high quality star wars figurines, well, forget it.

The printer is very easy to use, & works quite nicely, its fun to watch too!
Its quite intelligent in that it calculates most of the background work needed to get the model stable.
You dont need to muck with too many settings.

The bundled printer driver software is adequate, but not capable of doing anything beyond the standard scale & rotation functions. Some of the settings are not clear, which is annoying because you dont know what a particular function means.

Sadly, there is no real included documentation! But thankfully its not too complex to operate.
I was pointed to links to download docs from the internet, which cover more details.

There is hardly any documentation included, though there isnt much to do to get it going in all fairness.
The otherwise simple assembly instructions are not as intuitive as one might expect.

And if there is a fault, or anything goes wrong, you have to figure it out yourself.
In my case I am very lucky to have a good friend help me out with the support aspect, else I would be very disappointed.

The printer just cant print at .4 with full speed as its nozzle chokes.
This is more frustrating than you would think, becuase it will do it half way through a 3hr print.
No solution was presented to me for this issue, & basically I was told to use slower settings with higher density to stop the printer clogging.
Thats just bad design.

If your print has lots of edges & not many surfaces, & its a small model say 40mm x 40mm x 40mm, you'll be ok printing at 40 micron, but if it has any area where the head goes crazy pumping plastic through, expect it to air print rather soon after its done that.


The printer can accept many different file formats, but you will mostly need to use netfabb or something similar to optomise the models.
Most of the models created will have issues that the printer wont like, & thus wont be printed.
During the sales pitch, everything sounds very rosy, as though youd have a model & it would just print, but that is very much not the case.

You spend more time mucking around with models getting them to print & satisfy the mysterious needs of this device.

Also, the nozzle chokes really really quickly. At least thats been my experience.
I spent more time swearing that actually using the product.

It also doesnt beep or notify you in any manner, if something goes wrong.
In one case, it continued printing for 30 minutes without any plastic feeding in, probably due to what looked like a choked nozzle. Thats just dumb.

The standard recommended models are stereolith .stl files, but when you export models to this format from other native formats, you dont get to keep the original texture. You also loose some types of smoothing.

I used 3d studio max quite extensively, & when I exported to .stl, I lost some of the the smoothing applied on the mesh objects. Not pretty, but it works because you wont notice that on a plastic model of this size anyway.

The biggest bloody mission is getting the model off the base plate & breaking/cutting off all the support material used.
In case youre new to 3d printing, the way it works is that the model is printed lay by layer so each layer has to be stable enough for more plastic to be added to it.
In cases where shapes have plastic protuding out, the printer intelligently calculates & automatically designs supports for those areas, but then you have to take those off.

This is where things get messy, & tricky. If you pull too hard taking off the support material, you risk breaking the model itself, & if you dont pull enough, the material wont come off.
Excesive support material impacts the qualtiy of the print on that particular side, it wont be as smooth.

Also, the system doesnt tolerate any design fallacies, especially open edges or holes.
You see, the printer doesnt understand the concept of a minimum thickness, so everything should essentially be a measured closed surface from all sides.

Any 'facets' open on any object causes it to reject the print command.
Netfabb's repair utility helps, but doesnt cure the issues. You need to go back to the drawing board & fix it all. Sometimes this is to difficult as you need to pretty much re-engineer your model to ensure no object has facets that dont have undefined thickness, or ensure they are all correctly terminated at its ends.

As much as I find all of this exciting & the potential for this technology is amazing, in hind sight I think I rushed into this 3d printer & paid a tad too much for it, without researching the technology limitation properly. I also never actually saw a demo of something complex being printed, & didnt occur to request trying out one of my own models to see all the fuss it would have.

Saying that, this technology is growing & booming, & will improve quickly. And some of the design limitations only help you improve your model so thats the upside to the pain.

Also, any issues with support structure are trivial once you think accurately & rotate the model such that minimum vertical supports are needed to support it.

Do you own a 3d printer? Have you owned a competition makerbot or the like?
What were your thoughts? What do you see as the future of 3d printing?
Please share your opinions.

I will expand more on this review, & write more articles as I get more into it, but for now, this toy is definitely on top of my list.

More posts with specific items & models & videos coming soon!

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Nikon DSLR - Active D-Lighting, Auto ISO etc

Auto ISO & Active D-Lighting in a Nikon


Auto ISO is a feature that most Nikon DSLRs have had for years, but Canon never implemented it.
Lots of professionals disliked it & advocated turning it off.
The same is also for Active D Lighting, thats Nikons version for automatic brightness & contrast correction.

How good are these 2 features, & should Nikon folks really use them?Short answer, YES!! They are freaking awesome!

I think most people who strongly advocate turning both these excellent features off, either do not know how to use them, or have unrealistic expectations, or are just plain in-experienced.
When used correctly, & consciously, Auto ISO & Active D-Lighting are awesome.
I will illustrate here with some examples.

For these pics, I used my biggest aperture lens, a Sigma 30mm F/1.4 fully open at f1.4 for all the photos. The idea is to use these features in challenging conditions, & what better challenge than low-light hand-held photos :) So all the pics are indoors with a small energy efficient fluorescent bulb with a warm colour temperature, to simulate a typical under-lit situation.

And you know my favourite quote "Get it in Camera"
Yes you'll argue Auto correction features are also an image enhancement, but given the fact that these auto features are only giving us the improved performance from our equipment rather than adding 'magic' to the photos, I dont consider them to be image manipulation per say.

Active D-Lighting

The idea is simple, you get a very natural looking extended dynamic range by creating good detail in shadows & not over-exposing your highs.
This is particularly important in low light photos when you want to rely on natural light.
This of it as the midtone correction built-in your camera, so it saves having to post-process things.

Here are some images, left to right, Active D-Lighting is off & then progressively turned on & its level increased.
The extreme settings are artificial, but the impact is noticeable.
I would suggest turning on active D-Lighting & using it on the 'High' setting in your Nikon DSLR


Auto ISO

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

B&W HTM62 vs B&W LCR60 S3 vs B&W CC6 S2 vs B&W LCR6 - The battle for the middle

In pursuit of the best overall B&W centre channel speaker


If you own a Bowers & Wilkins 6 series home theatre system, you might have struggled to find the perfect centre channel speaker, thats perhaps not as large & as pricy as the 3-way HTM61.
You might want a HTM61, but in the size dimensions of the HTM62 so that it doesnt look like you have a suitcase sitting under your TV.

Firstly, if you can afford it & have the space for it, the HTM61 is definitely the best of the lot.

Please have a read of my comparison between HTM61 the 3-way giant &, everybody else, here.

Its the only true 3-way centre channel speaker & in my experience, 3 way speakers have always impressed me over their 2 & 2.5 way counterparts.


If not HTM61, then read on...

I started with an LCR 60 S3, downgraded to a CC 6 S2, further downgraded to a LCR3, & then upgraded to a HTM62.


My current setup is:
Bowers and Wilkins 683 floor stander fronts
Bowers & Wilkins HTM 62 centre channel
B & W LM1 rear surrounds
B&W ASW608 8" sub woofer
Marantz SR-6004 7.1 ch Receiver (110W RMS per ch)


My recommendations (if you dont want to read the whole article):


Best overall value:
B&W CC6 S2

Most versatile performance:
B&W LCR60 S3

Best movie dialogues (you dont have to strain to hear every word):
B&W LCR3

Best for high quality music:
B&W HTM62

Ok, details on each speaker...


Again, if you have the money & the space, (& the wife approval to place a behemoth under your TV), then please save yourself the hassle & go buy a HTM61.
For the rest of us mortal folk, read on.

HTM62:

The Good:

Excellent overall performance, the new speaker truly is worth it.
The best timbre matching for the new 683 & related family speakers
Excellent detail in the mid bass & mid treble, very real sound
Best for hifi music audio

The Bad:

Not as open in the middle section of the vocals
The same muddy vocal issue that plagues other 2-way B&W centers affects this one.
Excessive LF response

 

LCR60 S3:

The Good:

Very good open vocals
Excellent separation between different instruments & speech
A true all range speaker, that really can be a L C R
No dullness, provides a clean full sound
Worth trying out as centre if you have a CM series bookshelf configuration, & are on a budget

The Bad:

A tad bright at the top.
Lacks mid bass.
The bass doesnt deliver good extension at the bottom.
Not the best timbre matching for 6 series floor standers.
Too big for what is not best use of that air volume.


CC6 S2:

The Good:

Very good timbre matching for 6 series floor standers.
Decent bass extension at the bottom.
Vocals have a rich depth, the LF extension gives a clean sound in surround music.
Overall a neutral sound, a true centre channel speaker.

The Bad:

Tad muddy on the mid-range vocals.
A bit too warm all over despite falling in the neutral category.
Bottom bass is not fast, everything booms for longer than you'd sometimes like.


LCR3:

The Good:

Very good sound for the small size & price.
Timbre match almost any 6 series speaker, even the big floor-standers, which for the price is an awesome result!
Vocals are very clear & sharp compared to other cheap speakers, easy to use for movies.

The Bad:

Almost no real low end bass, vocals in hifi music sound a tad gutless.
Not the most neutral sound, & a bit of dullness at the very top end.
Not a rich sounding speaker, but if you have 6 series bookshelfs, this is a great choice.

So there you have it, my little bit of experience with the B&W centres. Was it useful, please let me know your comments so we can make this article even better.


Which ones have you got/used? Im tempted to mix the mighty CM Centre 2 with the 683, anyone tried that yet? Sounds a tad silly, but I love crisp dialogue & I think the cmc2 will be an interesting upgrade... all in good time dear friends, all in good time! :)

Friday, October 5, 2012

Nikon 35mm F2D vs Nikon 35mm f1.8G vs Sigma 30mm F1.4 vs Nikon 50mm F1.8

The battle of the fast primes


Besides the obvious comparison, this article is also for anyone out who has a 50mm 1.8 on a DX sensor body & is considering an upgrade to a lens that delivers a true 50mm field of view perspective on a DX thats equivalent to a true 50mm on full frame FX.

What our contenders look like on the outside:


Sigma 30mm F/1.4 DX
Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM courtesy www.SigmaPhoto.com
 
Nikon 35mm F2/D courtesy www.nikon.co.nz


 

 

 

 

 

Main advantages & dis-advantages of each lens

A very important element around comparing these 4 lenses is to remember that the Sigma & the Nikon 1.8 G are DX only, & mainly designed for the smaller APSC crop sensor cameras. They thus have a built in AF motor so it will work with any DX camera including the entry level D3000/D5000 series nikon bodies.

But it will not be all that great on a FX camera, unless you use crop mode & are happy with the 50mm FX FOV picture angle on an FX camera.

Both the nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 & the Nikon F 2/D are full frame sensor FX lenses, but will NOT Auto focus on the entry level Nikon DX bodies.

The Sigma is a tank, big & heavy. The nikons are light & easy to carry.

The sigma definitely has the best low light performance & its a noticeable advantage doing handheld low light photos which turn out quite well for subjects like pets & kids. Dont expect perfection out of any of these lenses in low light without some sacrifices.

The Nikon 1.8G is the sharpest wide open, so sharp that it beats the Sigma 1.4s at 1.8!!
I am serious. This Nikon lens is something Canon guys must miss as the performance of this $250 lens is better than some $700 lenses!

If you rely on short minimum focus distance, you should buy the Nikon 35mm F2D, the others are not macro, & definitely stay away from the Sigma. With a minimum focus of 45cm & a finicky focus, that is the worst thing at close distance, but yes, it works.
The 35 G is a good one, almost as close as the 35 F2.

Watch out for...!

If you are on a budget feel free to buy the Nikons used with relative peace of mind, but double check the 35mm F2d to ensure its not from a faulty batch back in 1999-2000 when lubricant leaked onto aperture blades & would randomly over expose your photos, it was nasty. Simple easy check, just slide the aperture actuater lever from the back of the lense & make sure the spring action is fast & crisp. The aperture should open & shut quickly.

Nikons usually last well so once they are checked ok you will have excellent life & re-sale value.

Be cautious buying the sigma used, make sure it doesnt have the usual sigma back/front focus errors or unreasonably low edge clarity / sharpness / contrast ok. Their focus becomes grindy & noisy very fast, ensure it still has plenty life left in it. Otherwise it will be fine.

If buying used, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G is the best value prime among the lot, but it has its downsides as explained later in the review.

If you are buying new & dont want to buy used & are on a budget, go with the Nikkor 50mm AF-D f/1.8 Its an absolute no-brainer when it comes to best value. Have a read of my review here for details on why I just love the Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens.

I wouldnt recommend upgrading to the 50 1.4 as its still the same 50mm on dx which is 75mm equivalent & often too narrow on dx, which is the point of considering the 35f2 etc


Sharpness / Contrast:

Nikon 35mm F1.8 G is the hands down winner, even beating the legendary 50 1.8 wide open on DX.
Important to remember this is a DX only lens, unless you want to use it in 'crop mode'.

Colour Rendition:

Both DX Lenses are opposites in this area.
If you want absolutely gorgeous skin tone & beautiful detail in the eyes, the 35 1.8G wins hands down.

If you like a warmer (arguably excessively saturated) image, for low light interiors or architecture, the Sigma is good.

But if you want something extremely plain to say shoot in RAW & then work the saturation in Lightroom, then get the Nikon 35 F2.
I must confess this is so neutral that it didnt impress me. I think Nikon got a bit too carried away in making it so neutral that it almost looks bland!
35mm F2 didnt give me the kind of skin tone image I like for portraits.

Close focus / macro performance:

The sigma is not a macro lens by any measure, & if you do get close, say hi to barrel distortion!
The Nikon 35 f2 is so good its almost a macro lens! It gives you 1.5 times the image you would get from the sigma.
But there there, these are not macro lenses, so I dont like to worry about it. Use the right tool for the job. If you want macro performance, either reverse a 50mm prime lens, or buy a macro lens :)
Saying that, if you dont do much macro, but want a versatile wide prime, the 35f2 is a great choice.

Distortion:

The sigma as expected has barrel distortion, & sadly, its really obvious! Dont attempt shooting straight lines, else this thing will disappoint, what a shame, as the rest of the image quality was quite acceptable for an otherwise cheap F 1.4 DX.
It also has some vignetting, but interestingly its not as noticible.

The Nikon 35 G is marvellous in this regard. It also has surprisingly low vignetting, which is great!

Some say the Nikon 35 f/2 is sharp even wide open at F2, but that was not the case for me.
It also has some vignetting, perhaps a tad more than the sigma when comparing both at F/2, but its ok.
And the vignetting stays even on smaller apertures, thats ok for some portrait photographers, but I personally do not like vignetting & the Nikon 50 f1.8 is a great lense in that matter.

Bokeh:

I am a big admirer of nice bokeh in a lens. Its because bokeh is one of those qualities in a lens that helps you choose between 2 similar products, & of course, its one of the few things that is open to personal opinion too.

I like creamy blurred bokeh with low contrasted edges, I don't like excessively overexposed sharp bokeh like those rendered by many Canon & Leica lenses.
I like this appealing arty bokeh in all my photos, especially portraits, where a distracting bokeh shifts the focus from the main subject.

For me, smooth silky bokeh with a non bright edge looks nice for portraits shots, where the subject isolation is more critical than to have bright highlights in your face. I dont like mild repetitive bokeh, I like very soft edges & shapes to be blown out quite a bit.

The lens I benchmark all my bokeh to is the Nikon 70-200mm VR, a lens that I absolutely adore!

In my opinion, the Nikon 1.8G is the sharpest but sadly the only 1 thing it doesn't do well is bokeh. It forms donut bokeh rather than proper circles, & it tends to be a little too bright to my taste.
This is still the lens I prefer for indoor portraits though as the sharpness in the eyes & skin tone rendition more than makes up for it.

But the Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens is great when you want to photograph people or kidswithout a flash in room light, & want good colour & good bokeh in situation with ambient light & varied backgrounds.

Though sigma bokeh didn't blow me away, I think it is quite well suited among the others.
Its bokeh is smooth, buttery/milky I would say, & its not bright, yet has decent edge clarity

The Sigma did tend to over-expose the bokeh sometimes, but thats also partly due to F1.4 & metering against a close subject with lighting levels being very a little different between the subject & the background. Still, I noticed the Sigma does tend to over-expose its bokeh quite frequently.

The Nikon 35 f/2 D is a very neutral lense in almost every respect. Its rather unimpressive bokeh is inline with its neutral performance. I think the bokeh is characteristic of any other lens thats versatile enough for every need & is designed to be sharp, above everything else.
The boken of the 35 f2 was really not to my likeing, & I think my Nikon 18-200mm VR does a better job even at f3.5

I would call Nikon's 35 f2d bokeh a tad bright, with low impact & lack of saturation. It had good edge clarity but wasnt contrasty enough to my taste, the sigma won out for me, but not by much.

If you dont care about bokeh, the 35 F1.8G will blow you away.

Final recommendations:

If on DX & don't intend to upgrade to FX soon, get the Nikon 35mm f1.8 G - hands down overall winner. Love it!
It is now my favourite lens, & the only lens I would consider carrying if I couldn't take my 18-200mm VR.

If on DX & bokeh is critical, then a used Sigma is the best features for price & has the best field of view, very versatile. But I wouldnt say that the extra stop is NOT the main point, other factors are important. Tread carefully, & if in doubt, get the Nikon G.

If going to upgrade to FX, then 35 F2D is a good choice. Great lens in almost every situation. But if on FX, strongly consider the 50 F1.8. A50mm on FX is pretty decent.

If on DX, & on a tight budget, buying new or used, the 50mm F1.8 is great.
If you were going to buy the 50 1.8 brand new though, I encourage you to instead buy a 35 1.8G used.
If you cant make up your mind & are going to be on DX for a while get the 35 1.8G.
But if youre already considering FX, get the 50 1.8 It will not disappoint. The only downside is the narrow 50mm while you will use it on DX ie 75mm picture angle, otherwise there is nothing wrong with it.