Full Frame FX vs Crop sensor DX - DOF

Full frame vs DX for DOF

A lot of online posts talk about how the key point behind FF is low light ISO performance, followed by Depth of Field, but no one has properly shown it side by side with examples.

It was this talk about subject isolation & DOF that really got me interested in FX in the first place.
So I asked myself the key question:

If I take the same exact photo with the 'equivalent focal length lenses' (eg 50mm on FX & 35mm on DX) , then how much more shallower DOF will I actually be getting with the Full frame camera?

After doing a fair bit of research into considering whether Full Frame was my next big step, I realised that the only way to know the answer would be to buy one & then publish my results side by side.

The article is still in progress with photos etc but Ill publish it as the outcome is quite clear.

Short Answer:

If you don't want to read the whole thing but want my confirmed opinion based on my photos, here is my verdict:

If you are an experienced amateur or semi-pro, FX has a significant advantage for subject isolation & DOF to create a smooth bokeh. We're not talking small difference, we're talking game changer difference. FX wins big. I illustrate the benefits by placing multiple side by side photos in the article below. But if you don't care about the shallow depth of field, then there is not enough benefit in moving to FX.

If you are a new comer to DSLR world I actually recommend DX because of this feature.

 The limited depth of field in FX needs control. If you buy a f1.8 prime lense & just leave the camera sitting on Program mode & are taking family pics, the camera will use f1.8 for every shot to compensate for the low light, so it can cause a lot of your subjects to be out of focus, or one eye in focus & the other blurred etc, even if they are slightly tilted.

If you are new to photography, get a DX camera, there is more than enough subject isolation possible for a beginner even on DX until you improve your aperture selection.

Other Observations:

ISO performance is better in my D600 than any previous camera, but having used a D7000 before, I don't consider ISO performance to be the key point of a Full frame camera. ISO performance & low light benefits in newer DX cameras are very comparable to equivalent class FX cameras & don't justify spending double to move to FX.

If you want super sharp beautiful portraits & exceptional detail in your images at equivalent resolutions to the DX camera, then FX helps. Ie, a 24MP FX will beat a 24MP dx in matters of detail & dof.
If you don't need insane subject isolation & own good lenses on DX, then from the cost stand point there is no other benefit moving to FX. Image Quality on both systems is equal when you compare equally well made bodies with good sensors. IQ doesn't include DOF. IQ refers to mainly things like low light performance & noise. Yes the FX is marginally better, but not significant enough to make a move. If you don't need dof control, don't bother moving to FX.

Objectives of Experiment:

This article focuses on the DOF aspect of the 2 formats, & not necessarily on ever single aspect of the image difference, because there is a significant different between my D300s & D600 in terms of what generation their sensors are etc.

We know for a fact that within reason, not manufacturer has made 2 cameras that are equal with only the limitation of exactly the sensor. Nikon came close to it by making the D7000 & D600 with same senor & AF system, but different number of pixels. Then when they upped the pixels in D7100, they changed the sensor & AF system.

So, lets be very clear about the fact that we will never be able to truly compare apples with apples in regards to image quality, & that no manufacturer will ever make 2 cameras where we can easily prove one format better over the other, because that would hurt their own marketing.

But what we can compare with great ease is the DOF, which is my main area of interest behind putting up this post.

About the Comparison Images

We did the test with primes & zooms.
First with prime lenses set to aperture at 1.8 on FX as the baseline, & then check what the aperture did on FX with the equivalent focal length on DX. Ie, comparing a 50mm on FX to 35mm on DX
And then with zoom lenses set to 2.8 on DX. Comparing a 17-50mm f2.8 to a 28-70mm f2.8.

We start dropping the aperture down on the DX until the DOF looks similar to that set on the FX.

I used the best possible lenses I could afford, but even if they weren't the sharpest, that wouldn't matter so much as all we are focusing on is the DOF differences between the 2 systems.

All images taken at iso 400 aperture priority.
Focal point is always dead centre, which is the black plastic piece in centre of frame.

Prime lenses & large apertures:

I used a Nikon 50mm F1.4D on D600 FX & Nikon 35mm F1.8G on D300s DX.
These are the best lenses Nikon makes for DX & FX respectively.

D600 50mm at f1.8 vs D300s 35mm set to different apertures in every shot

Test 1 50mm f1.8 vs 35mm

The D600 at f1.8 is the clear winner, & you will see this pattern in every single photo. The FX will have a shallower DOF.

 

Test 2 50mm FX at f1.8 vs 35mm DX set to f2.8

 

 

Test 2 50mm FX at f1.8 vs 35mm DX set to f3.2

Common question - Should I buy the best DX or the cheapest FX eg Nikon D7100 vs Nikon D610. Please click on this to read my earlier blog post.

Ramblings & Criticism of some current opinions on the FX vs DX saga

I like to genuinely be neutral & unbiaised when reporting things, I don't have my ego attached to my opinions. And I always change my opinion when a better one is presented.
I also feel that what suits you best is for you as at that point, & could change again.
I was on DX for 10 years before I moved to FX.
I don't care whether something is called DX or FX, what I care about is the findings.

Despite me suggesting that DX is the better option 99% of the time if you don't care about this excessive shallow DOF, I want to address some of the other stuff I have read, which doesn't do justice to either party.

1) The Politically Correct 'Its a choice' Opinion

Many new marketing driven blog posts are now saying its a 'choice'. Ok, you can put it like that, but if its just a 'choice' then there should come a day where FX will cost the same as DX & you'll just 'choose' - but wait, that will never happen, & not because it costs a lot more to make, but because premium cameras will only ever continue to be made in FX to optimise the profits.

If you have all the money in the world & want to buy the best camera AND the best lenses then you have but naturally got the best camera, then you want FX. A big 'AND' above because without the equivalent best FX lenses you are wasting your money, glass before body, always remember that no matter what you buy.

If you cant afford the FX, go for a DX, but don't disillusion yourself into thinking that the DX is somehow 'better' to FX. No its better for you to go with DX as it will save you the dollars as at that point in time, like it did for me, for a whole 10 years I stuck to DX!! But that doesn't mean that FX will not be better.

2 ) DX crop ratio of 1.5x gets me more 'zoom'

Well, to get the said 'zoom', you could take the hires 24MP image you get from your FX camera & crop it as much as you please.
You'll argue that means you're loosing resolution. No, youre loosing 'Megapixels', & you might be thinking that all those extra pixels lost are going to make a worse image, but infact, as we know well, MPs have little to do with IQ. So, the zoom argument in my opinion is moot in todays age of insanely high MPs available in every DX & FX camera out there.

People debate that by putting a 70-200mm F2.8 on DX they are getting the equal of 300mm f2.8
No, they are not. They are getting 300mm at f4.5 because the DOF on DX is less than FX.

By using 70-200mm f2.8 at 200mm f2.8 on a 24MP FX camera, I can then crop it into a 10MP image which will be 300mm f2.8.

Now what would I rather have a 10MP 300mm F2.8 or a 24MP 300mm F4.5??
If you want to follow the megapixel hokum, you're welcome to pick the 300mm f4.5, but any real photographer knows that MP don't mean anything in the real world, where 10MP is more than enough.

3) FX may give me the subject isolation but I loose light so need to push ISO which makes my images noisier.

Best DX camera vs cheapest FX body

Should I buy the best DX or the cheapest FX eg Nikon D7100 vs Nikon D610

Current approx prices in New Zealand for the D7100 is NZ$1500 & D610 is $2500.

Most extremists have their heart set on one or the other.
I'll simplify the decision making for you here in under a minute.

Its a simple answer based on 3 simple questions.

Is the shallower DOF you get on FX so very important to you that you would pay a whole thousand dollars just to have that??

Is the minor improvement in high ISO performance on FX so important to you that you'd pay a whole thousand for it??

Are you ok with the fact that the D7100 has more AF points at 51 scattered all thourhgout the frame whereas the D610 only has 39 packed mostly in the center, & you are still going to have to pay $1000 extra for a D600 to get the shallower DOF & the better ISO performance?

If yes, go for the D600!

If not, go with the D7100.

Both cameras are brilliant.

What if I can get a second hand D600 for close to the price of a new D7100?

Ok, that makes things easier on the wallet, but the questions don't change too much.
Do you care so much about superb shallow dof performance & slightly better ISo performance that you are ok to sacrifise getting more AF points of the D7100 in return for the D600?
If yes, yay for D600, if not yay for D7100

In reality, I wouldn't even buy a D7100, Id still buy a D7000, save the money & use it for better lenses. remember, no substitute for better lenses. Regardless of DX FX DSLR or any other photographic format on earth.

If I have a budget of $2000, should I buy a D600 & attach a 18-55mm VR kit lens, or a D7100 with a bunch of lenses?

Never forget the golden rule, lens before cameras. Optics before electronics.
Cameras are called electronic devices today, but they are not, they are optical devices.
Crappy optics = crappy photos, never forget that fact.
So forget the fancy body, get the fancy lens. You will not regret the decision & your work will outperform whats produced with cheapo lens on the fancy body.

I already have 3 lenses, but my photos are still not so good, what should I upgrade to?

Upgrade to reading more articles to improve your techniques. Then buy more lenses to try different forms of photography that you find intriguing. Then upgrade the lenses you have to the best in their class based on the ones you use the most. Then read more & upgrade your skills again. And then when thats done, upgrade your camera.
And if switching from DX to FX at that point, please dont forget to buy good FX lenses if you dont already have them.

B+W vs Hoya HD vs Marumi Exus Pro - UV protector filter stand off

Top end UV Protection filter show down

In this post we do practical side by side photos out of the 3 big names in the filter world to see if either of them is better, & if any of them are worth the premium over their slightly cheaper counter parts.

The Hoya HD is 77mm
The B+W & Marumi Exus are 72mm

Here is the final verdict first:

Marumi exus pro is by far the best filter for the quality & features it offers being the cheapest of the 3.

Hoya HD is incredibly tough but lesser light transmission than the others, even less than the Marumi, which surprised me.

B+W coatings are very very good, for once you appreciate why filters, even in the digital age are very useful.
However, the good quality coatings are not out of the world & so I dont think worth paying 3x the price of Marumi exus pro.

How we went about it:

We will be mounting these on a Nikon 35mm f1.8G prime lens stopped down to F/10 because it is the sharpest lens in this range available at present, & at F/10 its sharpness equals prime lenses ten times its price & is more than adequate for our testing.
Bokeh & colour rendtion dont matter in our test. It is only the variances between the 3 filters is all we are looking for.

There is some argument around how hand holding things isnt exactly 'ideal', but like most of my tests, I want to see real world differences, not just laboratory numbers.
In such cases, hand holding the filter in front of the lens is more than adequate.

Sigma 8-16mm vs Tokina 12-24mm F4 - Ultrawide lens showdown

The Sigma 8-16mm vs Tokina 12-24mm

8mm focal length is awesome when compared to 12mm, take a look at these sample pics:



Sigma 8-6mm at 8mm - no editing except resizing

 

 



Tokina 12-24mm at 12mm - no editing except resizing.

 

The good:

I love the extra 4mm, it is really brilliant.
Image quality is quite sharp, at par with the well respected Tokina.
Very low distortion for a rectilinear lens, in my opinion beats the Tokina here
Unlike most sigmas, it thankfully focuses quite well!
- Or maybe Im lucky to have a good sample for a change, & my previous sigmas might have been duds... :o
F/3.5 at its widest end provides a slight advantage in low light scenarios, but not by much
Superb close focus distance of only 20cm is really nice for exagerrated perspectives

The bad:

The biggest problem is you cant use Filters at 8mm, at 16mm too its almost impossible & will vignette.
- Forget your ND8 for slow speed shots of water, even a cokin system isnt available yet :(
Non detachable hood, because with the 105 deg picture angle, the lens element has to raise outside themain rim & thus needs basic protection provided by the fixed petal lens hood.
No proper cap, you need to slide the clumsy cover on
 - Makes it too long un-necessarily
Heavier than the Tokina, but not too bad for the extra range
Minimum aperture only F/22
- No filters + super low close up focus distance often leaves you wanting more Depth of Field, & F22 sometimes doesnt cut it.
Focus override with the focus ring just doesnt work with many Nikons including the D90.

 

Tokina 12-24mm:

The good:

Very versatile zoom range up to 24mm
- this can be a one shop architecture destination travel lens because it lets you go up to 24mm when needed.
Constant F4 aperture
- great when you want to take that shot with a person in a scene at 24mm, in available light.
Light weight, easy to carry
- Not as light as a tamron, but good compromise in return for the decent image quality.
Goes down to F32 & allows filters to be used even at 12mm
- Grab your ND & go for some cool slow exposure scenic shots.

The bad:

More distortion in the edges/corners at 12mm than the sigma.
Doesnt go as wide as you might want to, when you think about the 8mm sigma.
Minimum focus distance is around 35 cms, which at 12mm isnt as much perspective exagerration as you sometimes like.
The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is a great lens too, but still, 8mm is hard to beat.
The oder versoin doesnt have an AF motor so screw drive can be a bit noisy, but still fast focus.

Macro Photography Basics - Part 2

Macro Photography Part 2

Hello, this is the second half of my blurb on macro photography. If you are familiar with the concept & please read on. If youre a beginner wanting to get a better understanding of the basics, please feel free to read the part 1 of my macro photography article.

In this part, we cover more on Lenses, Accessories, lighting, & basic Techniques around aperture selection, iso, shutter speed etc.

Macro lens vs Front Adapter Rings vs bellows units vs Lens Extension Tubes

So a big question Im asked is, whats the best option.
The fact is that it really depends upon your budget, how much of your photography is macro, & analysing your cost vs benefit, like everything else.

I recommend you start by using the lens reversal idea, see if it sparks an interest, & if it does, go for a cheap macro lens.

Screw on macro adjustment rings:

The screw on front objective rings are great if you want just a little bit of magnification on your average cheap kit 18-55mm lens, but dont expect anything significant.
Be very careful of using these on internal focus lenses lenses where the focal point throughout the focal length. I read a long article on it & got myself confused, but basically, avoid using these little rings on lenses like the popular 18-200mm VR etc. It will not work well at most focal lengths & often have focus errors etc

Macro Extension tubes

Extension pieces come in 2 variants, the cheaper ones that dont support exposure metering/AF, & the more expensive ones that are supposed to support metering.
Increasing the distance between your lens & camera reduces the minimum focus distance thus allowing you to go closer to your subject, simple as that. You can try it out by holding the lens in your hand to get the idea.

I feel that if youre buying extension tubes, you might as well buy ones that support exposure metering, otherwise, why not just use the lens reversing & make do.
In my opinion, no point spending on tubes that dont have metering support.

Saying that, some extension tubes come in sets & can cost about that same as a cheap prime lens.
That brings us to our next idea:

Lens on Lens reversal:

One of the oldest ways to do macro is to take 2 50mm prime lenses & reverse one onto the lens on your camera.
You can just hold the lens, or buy a $20 filter thread objective reversal ring off eBay.
You get full AF & metering.

Best to ick an older style lens that has an aperture so that you can keep the aperture open as big as possible, say f1.8.

It is best to do this on a prime that has no extension of the front objective during focus, otherwise AF will not work.
But even if it is the cheaper type which does extend in & out, the metering is there & you get more magnification from this technique than any tube or lens reversal ring.

But, it potentially is prone to aberration or other optical issues in the picture, distortion, fish eye etc tend to happen. Still not bad though.

I prefer the simple single lens reversal as its more manageable, not too heavy, inexpensive & very good image quality.

How to select a macro lens:

Magnification Ratio - Maximum Reproduction Ratio - How Ratios work:

The terms magnification ratio & maximum reproduction ratio for any lens are the same thing.
Its nothing more than the actual size of the object vs the size it will be when measured on the image sensor.

1:1 means that the image on the sensor will be the same size as the object itself.
1:2 means the image will be half the size.

It is common to confuse the second number & assume that 1:2 means double, it doesnt.
Remember 1:2 means half. You should divide the first number by the second number to get your actual magnification.
Some lens models were more user friendly & stated the magnification as a number like 0.25, or 0.5.
0.5= 1:2 & 0.25 = 1:4, etc

These numbers are listed all along the barrel on a macro len, pretty usually in a similar way as the focus distance numbers. You will usually see them start around 1:10, & then work their way down to 1:1 or so.

What you should look for:

1:1 magnification is considered bare minimum for a 'macro' specification, ie, a lense that will re-produce the image of the object on the sensor thats the same as the real object thats visible in your photo.
But cheaper macro lenses can be 1:2. These are not to be dismissed, & you can screw on an adapter that will bring them to 1:1 performance with minimal image quality change.

You can also connect any of these to a teleconverter, a 2x doubler which also provides a noticible increase in image size.

Digital SLR technology has come a long way, & a good sensor means you can crop & achieve a resultant image size with the crop ratio that will provide you comparable detail to 1:1 magnification or better.

But, do not confuse dslr sensor crop ratio & image cropping manually done as being 1:1 magnification.

This brings us to the next topic on focal lengths.

What focal range & f-stop lens should I buy - 100mm 60mm 40mm 200mm!?

The lesser the focal length, the closer you will need to go to the target subject to achieve the big image size on the sensor. It is important you understand this because it impacts your picture angle & field of view much the same as you would think of in any application of photography.

If you have a very wide macro lens, youre going too close so the parallax of whats behind the object is significant. The narrower lens, the less you need to get closer, so your object may look more uniform.
But then you wont get the effect of feeling 'sucked into' the macro photo.

Get this right, for it will impact every photo you take. There is no right or wrong answer, it just means your images will look a certain way everytime.

My recommendation for macro is that if you want a lense thats macro as well as versatile, then a 60mm is ok. If you want a lens that is really for close up macro, go with at least 100mm.

If you want something for specialist medical photography etc, people use the 200mm all the time. Thats when you need to read an article written by an expert in that field :)
If you want to do specialist macro but are a beginner, I suggest you start with basic macro ideas like those in this article, but then work your way up.

How to start off:

People usually start with the usual suspects, flowers, small insects etc, but really, its whatever captures your fancy.
Having seen my attached photos, some will make you wonder what they are.
You too can try to capture subjects where the viewer would wonder what it is that youve captured!

Common Myths which are incorrect:

Personally, I use 100mm on a DX sensor camera. Again, remember, this doesnt mean that the magnification of my macro lens is 1.5x of the number shown on the barrel, thats incorrect.
The magnification always stays the same no matter what format camera you use with a lens that is compliant to your crop sensor.

Some people like to take a photo at a certain magnification, then crop say 50% worth of  the image off, & argue that the results are the same as a lens that would have twice the focal length. In digital, cropping & pixels have opened up the avenue for greater actual image size in pixel, but this must not be confused as being greater macro magnification.

Greater magnification in reality should be measured by how close a lens lets you go to the tinies of subjects, & then how much that tiny subject is magnified.

Enlarging large subjects & getting relative large image sieze is not the point of macro photography.
As I said before, if I take a photo of an animals head with a zoom lens & then crop it so that only the eye is visible, I cant argue that its 2:1 macro magnification, even though there is good resultant magnification, that is NOT macro by any measure.

To conclude, as long as you go close to the subject & take a photo, you are in the macro world.

Thanks for reading :)

Was this tutorial useful, & was it easy to understand?

I write these articles in the hope of them being better than other complex content out there so please let me know if this was useful, or not so that I can make them bettter in the future.

Happy Shooting :)

Macro Photography Basics - Part 1

The basics of  Macro Photography - An introduction 

What is Macro:

Macro or Micro, whatever you call it, is about capturing subjects that are small.
Essentially, for something to be classified as a macro photo, the usual impression is that the camera was brought quite close to it.
Though its not mandatory that the lens be in the subjects face, that is what the usual implmentation of macro photography starts off as.

Thats why, if you take a photo from a good distance & then crop it to death, that 'zoom' doesnt necessarily qualify as macro photography.

Forget about zoom, cropping & dslr crop ratio, true macro is about getting your hands dirty with the subject from as close to it as possible in most cases :)

Its about capturing detail that would otherwise be impossible with other techniques or equipment.

How do I start - Macro Equipment

Do I really need a macro lens:

Well folks, the great news is, No, you dont!
You dont need a macro lens, but it makes life easier than using other contraptions.
I recently came across cheap lenses like a Promaster Spectrum 7, which provide excellent image quality for an entry level price.

AF is not always that big a deal. Its nice to have but quite often useless.

f2.8 on a macro lens is practicaly useless for true macro.
With closeup macro photography, your depth of field is already not deep enough, because you're so close to the object that at any given point, almost everything behind the focal plane is significantly out of focus.
So more often than not, you will need to stop down to f10 or lower, even f16, before you get sufficient depth of field to capture details.

Yes, f2.8 lenses are great because you can then use them as your everyday prime lens instead of carrying your other prime lense around, but personally, I would not be overly concerned by a macro lenses maximum aperture.

A good macro lens will give you a sharp precise picture, especially when its closer to the minimum focus distance of the lens.

Macro lenses have very small minimum focus distances usually, ie the closest your lens can be to your subject in focus with average lenses today is around 50cm, with a macro lens, its often close to 5cm. Thats just an example, because back in the old days when most lenses had minimum focus distance of 200cm, a lens with 50cm was considered macro too! How the times change... :)

If not macro lens, then what

My favourite is the lens reversal concept.
Investment cost: 0 You dont need to spend any moey.
Almost every photographer has at least 1 lens that can be reversed & will act like a very simple macro lens.

The best option for that is a 50mm f1.8 type cheap simple prime lens.

For a start, just detach the lens from your camera, turn it around, & hold it against your camera.
Viola!

Yes its manual focus, manual metering, manual everything - welcome to the 1950s.
But hey, its free & works a treat :)

Find macro interesting, please read more in my Macro Photography Part 2 article here.

Was this first part of the article useful, & was it easy to understand?

I write these articles in the hope of them being better than other complex content out there so please let me know if this was useful, or not so that I can make them better in the future.

Happy Shooting :)

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 :)

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

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 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.

Buying Used DSLRs - Cheap Good Cameras

Some good old Digital SLR cams & lenses that are worth buying used any day

These items were all some of the best in their day, & some are the best even today. You can be pretty confident buying them, knowing your investment will pay off well, & they wont loose as much value if you do decide to upgrade.

Camera Bodies:

Nikon D70
Nikon D50
Nikon D200
Nikon D2

Nikon D40
Nikon D90
Nikon D3

Nikon D5100
Nikon D300S

Canon EOS 5D

Flashes

Nikon SB400
Nikon SB600
Nikon SB800

Metz 58 AF1
Canon 580 EX2

Lenses

Nikon 18-70mm
Nikon 24-70mm F2.8
Nikon 18-200mm
Nikon 70-300mm
Nikon 70-200mm AF-D, AF-S, VR 1,2 etc

Nikon 50mm F1.8
Nikon 50mm F1.4
Nikon 35mm F2

Tokina 11-16mm F2.8
Tokina 12-24mm F4

Tamron 18-270mm
Tamron 200-400mm F5.6

Canon 24-70mm F2.8
Canon 70-200mm F4

Nikon TC20E2 2.0x Teleconverter
Kenko Teleplus pro 300 DGX 2.0x AF Teleconverter


Got anything else I forgot to mention, please let me us know :)
Have you owned any of these & want to mention some points of consideration, please share your thoughts.

Thanks & hope you find this useful :)

Best Digital SLR cameras in NZ

The best DSLR in NZ for each level:

If you want an opinion without going into extensive details, please get one of these based on your level of experience/$$$

If you dont see yourself spending thousands & entering the world of photography, please feel free to buy a more simple camera. Please check my recommended point & shoot compact cameras here.

If youre new to the world of photography & are about to buy your first camera, Please do read my previous blog post on the golden rules of buying cameras, might help you make a good decision.

Beginner Amateur

Nikon D3100 + 18-55mm + 70-300

Easy to use fun camera that even does video. Doesnt have an auto-focus motor, not the best in low light, not very fast in continuous shooting, but for the price, better than you might imagine.

Enthusiast Intermediate level & also my personal favourite

Nikon D90 + Nikon 18-200mm VR lens + Nikon SB600 flash

My current camera kit recommendation for people who are prepared starting out on a semi decent yet modest budget to spend $2000 (for new) or $1500 (for used).

Its slightly old, but still available, & thats why its unbeatable value, grab it before they stop manufacturing it for what is currently a crazy cheap price. Go ahead & buy used, these are extremely well made & will last longer than you might think.

These components have all been superseded, & thats why are under NZ$2000 brand new (or NZ$1500 used)
This collection will satisfy 95% of your photography requirements, especially if youre just starting off.
I wouldnt hesitate doing something on a semi pro basis with this gear, if I do my job well you will like the results.

Semi-pro Wannabe

For someone wanting to take things into the pro market without spending too much, yet getting most of the good features. The 70-200mm & the 11-16 are pricy, but worth it. If you're on a budget, get a cheaper D90 body & get one of those lenses.

Nikon D7000 + 18-200mm VR + 70-200mm + 50mm F1.8 prime + Tokina 11-16mm ultrawide + Nikon SB800

Serious Semi-pros aiming for the top

This is when things start to get very very expensive. If you're on a budget, start buying lenses first then worry about the body.

Nikon D700 + 24-70mm f2.8 + 70-200mm f2.8 VR + 50mm F1.4D + Nikon 18-35mm ultrawide + Metz 58 AF2

Yes the new D800 & the SB910 is out, but there isnt all that big a difference. To me, value proposition is really important, the camera shouldnt cost too much just because its slightly better.

If you want the best

Well if money isnt a problem then its usually pretty easy

Nikon D4 + 24-70mm f2.8 + 70-200mm VR2 + SB910 + Nikon 50mm F1.4 prime + Nikon 14-24mm ultra wide

And then youll need lenses specifically suited to what you do, which skyrockets the price. So you can pick from maybe:
Nikon 105mm F2 DC portrait, Nikon 24mm F1.4 low light, Nikon 200-400mm F4, Nikon 300mm F2.8, Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 etc

Got recommendations or experiences you'd like to share, please share them here.

Thanks, Good luck. Happy Photographing :)

Best Cameras in NZ Compact Point & Shoot

Here is a shortlist of cameras to buy in New Zealand.

 

So many digital cameras out there now its a real dilemma deciding what to buy.

I have given a preference to something small within each class, so that you get the true benefit of compact light cameras that are easy to travel with.

 

Prices are approximate as of today in NZ$. Some are priced based on parallel imports, all legit none the less. I believe in value, so superb cameras that would cost the earth arent included.

 

All of these do video, almost any new camera in the market does video.

 

1) Nikon Coolpix P7100 - probably the best features for the price, but also the biggest camera. - $480

2) Nikon Coolpix S8200 - very good compact camera & yet good features. - $320

3) Nikon Coolpix S6300 - very capable for the price, great value, & quite small too.- $280

4) Canon Powershot A4000 IS - very good small camera, nice & easy to use. - $200

5) Fuji FinePix JZ500 - nice cheap camera, will do the job fine. - $170

6) Canon Powershot A3200 IS - super cheap camera that does everything - $100

Its pure co-incidene that the top 3 are Nikons. Yes I own a Nikon DSLR myself, but when compiling this list I was hard pressed to find other brands doing a good job in the sub 500 NZD price mark.

Buying your first Digital SLR camera - 5 Golden rules

The golden rules of cameras & photography, a quick little post that I will expand on in future posts:

1) Its NOT about MegaPixels, DO NOT LET ANYONE TELL YOU OTHERWISE!!

2) Its not about the camera body, ITS THE LENS!

3) Its not all about the camera, its also about LIGHTING.
4) Its not just your Equipment, ITS ALSO YOUR TECHNIQUE THAT MATTERS!
5) Its not about software & editing - Not Photoshop or Instagram. GET IT RIGHT IN CAMERA FOR STARTERS!



Its not about Canon Vs Nikon vs Olympus vs Sony, ITS YOU NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU CAN DO vs LEARNING HOW TO DO IT!

I am a Nikon fan for a whole heap of reasons important to me, but that doesnt mean Canon is bad. A whole lot more people buy Canon compared to any other brand, & that doesnt mean they are the best in everything either.
Just because Toyota sells more cars than Mercedes, doesnt make Toyota the better car does it?

People recommend starting with a Canon or a Nikon simply because these 2 brands have been established for so long that their products are well known & have good resale value, & there is plenty of documentation out there on how to use it. They have been around for ages & optics has been their expertise for all that time. Most people dont do extensive research or have a limited understanding of their needs, so to be safe than sorry, everyone recommends Canon or Nikon.

But the other underdogs arent all that bad anymore. If you do your research, dont hesitate buying what you think best suits your requirement.

You can find my personal list of nikon dslr camera recommendations here, & a list of more general point & shoot cameras recommended here.
I prefer Nikon for a few personal reasons so my recommendations are only in the Nikon lineup, doesnt mean you cant go with Canon.

Enjoy :)

Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D

Nikon 50mm F/1.8 AF-D Nikkor

This little Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D is a real gem. Its the most brilliant prime lens in the history of mankind.
Seriously, at around NZ$200, this lens is a no brainer. Its bigger brother the 50mm f1.4 is hands down better but heck, for just a stop faster its twice the price, & having owned both, I hardly miss my 1.4 because in terms of colour rendition & contrast I find this as good as the 1.4D version.



As usual, these are just my opinions & experiences, no is paying me to write these. I will tell what I feel is good or bad.

If you are squeezed on a budget & cant decide what to get for decent portraits, decent macro, a little bit of fun, all packed into one, then this is your lense. Pets, flowers, nature, throw it in, this baby will do it rather well.

Above image courtesy of Nikon USA.

A lot of people have written nice things about these 50mm prime lenses & I thought I might give you a few points to consider around all of them.

For you Canon folks out there, the canon f/1.8 is pretty much the same benefits so go for it, but this article related to my Nikkor lens.

Points to double check before you buy:

For $200 you cant go wrong, but then with every lens there will be some downsides.

On any DX sensor camera

The effective focal length will be equal to 75mm, thats a bit too narrow sometimes. The plus side is that being FX compliant, this lense will work just fine without having to worry about crop modes when you do buy a 35mm full frame sensor FX camera dslr body someday.

No Auto Focus on entry level cameras

This lens doesnt have a built in AF motor so will not auto focus on the new D3100 & D5100.

No AutoFocus override, ie, if your in af mode, & the camera is focusing where you dont want it to, you cant just grab the ring. You need to flick the body's AF switch in Manual & then change the focus, thats a precious few seconds lost when youre taking pics of infants or pets for example.
Now this isnt a big deal unless you intend to use it for fast moving subject or sports all of the time, which really isnt the intent with this $200 piece. Do-able though, dont underestimate it, but yes not easy.

Its not the fastest at focusing especially since its screw driven by your camera & doesnt have its own AF motor, but dont let the noise fool you into believe its slow, its just an illusion, its good enough.

Low light performance is impressive as expected.

In low light, this lense is brilliant. It focuses beautifully in low light thanks to that large aperture.
On my D90 with ISO2000 f1.8 I can take photos at 1/250 of a second in candle light!

It also has an aperture ring, now thats something you need on older film cameras, making this lense compatible on almost any Nikon out there since the 60s I think, I could be wrong just double check if youre buying it for an old film slr body.

The perture ring also comes in handy if you want to get onto eBay or TradeMe or whatever auction site you use & buy some cheap older manual focus teleconverts which are otherwise optically ok but just wont focus or meter. I would recommend using the lense with TCs of this type, except when trying to do some macro work, which I will explain later in this post.

Bokeh Characteritics:

This lens bokehs nicely, but not quite to my taste. At $200 though, everything about this lense is brilliant. But the bokeh is a tad too sharp, & though subject isolation is good, its not the best.
It gets nicer when you step down to f2.8, but the inherent quality of this lense is such that the character of the bokeh doesnt change much.

To me, the king of bokehs is (oddly enough a zoom) my beautiful Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR. Even the older Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S is pretty good, but the new VR version has something special. Its not the sharpness in the bokeh, its the detail without the sharpness that I just love. Well at $3000+, that lens better be, so you cant realistically expect the humble $200 50 f/1.8 to beat it.

Now mind you bokeh is a very subjective thing, you might love this lense.
Let me throw you some examples of the bokeh at f/1.8 & you can decide for yourself.
These are straight off camera at f1.8 no manipulation what so ever except a simple resize to make them just a tad smaller.

In the above image, observe the bokeh in the right centre on top of the fence posts. Also spot the ones on the top left around the tree. Like it? Well, if you do great. For $200, its pretty damn good!

Now this image is perhaps a more interesting example. Very faint Bokeh all over the place. Here you see the subject isolation & bokeh dont look the best. Look at how the twigs look like this was taken in excessive wind, it wasnt, it has just been blurred like that.

Feel free to have a read of Ken Rockwell's blog on the 50mm f1.8D as well. Though he doesnt talk bout the bokeh & subject isolation per say, 2 characteristics which are very important to me in any fasy large aperture lens, its still nice to read.

Look at how versatile it is:

The other brilliant thing is you invert this lens on a camera body (ie mounting or even just holding it with the objective toward the camera mount) & it turns into a brilliant macro lens! Of course it wont give you automatic exposure metering or auto focus, but if youve got a steady hand, well, its easy.

Check this out. As usual, no modifications made, straight off camera with a simple resize done just to make it visible on a small screen area.
First a photo of the NZ 10c coin taken at the minimum closeup distance of 45cms:

Not great, but check this next picture out.

It can be a $200 macro lens.

All I did was hold the lense upside down on the body (inverted) & went as close as around 3cms from the coin! I had to use Manual mode ofcourse, set the flash off iTTL into manual mode & set the power to get the right exposure levels. In this case I used 1/200 shutter, F8, BuiltIn flash firing at its lowest 1/128th power setting.

Impressive for a $200 device isnt it!
Ensure youre not in excessive windy or dirty conditions, you dont want to get it all dirty.
You can buy a $10 lense inverter from eBay or wherever which measn you dont have to get all fissly & hold the lense with one hand while doing this.

Saves you buying a $600 60mm f2.8 micro Nikkor macro lens, unless of course youre doing extensive macro work, in which case go for it.

So, if you dont mind the narrow field of view in DX & a bit of brightness in the bokeh, this is a great buy. Thanks Nikon!