« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »
February 22, 2007
[ STOP THE SHAKES! ]
THE ENEMY OF SHARP PICTURES is the unsteady hand. A bit of wobble in the hand will make for a blurry picture every time.
The elimination of eye-level optical viewfinders from digital cameras has created an unforeseen effect. In the olden days when the camera was held firmly against the face, braced by the nose behind and the hands in front, there was some natural shock-absorption. It is easier to hold a camera steady braced against the face than it is when held at arms length to view the LCD.
The good old tripod is still the most effective passive blur reduction device. Put the camera on a tripod and set the shutter release to self-timer (to reduce the effect of pushing the shutter release) and stand back. Unless you’re in a howling gale you can set the camera to minimum aperture for maximum depth of field and not worry about the 4 second shutter time.
There was a time when all single lens reflex cameras allowed mirror lock-up. By framing, composing and then raising the mirror into a locked position the vibration of the mirror slap is eliminated. These days only a couple of Pentaxes have this facility at an affordable price. Pity.
However, we must be realistic, most people do not go out with a tripod in their pocket, even if there are such things as pocketable tripods.
In some conditions it is possible to increase the ISO setting of the camera and then raise the shutter speed to overcome the effect of a shaking hand. With most compact cameras the practical limit to this approach is that above ISO400 the image will be degraded by noise. Most digital SLRS will easily cope with ISO800 and some produce good pictures at ISO1600.
“Image stabilisation” or “vibration reduction” is now common in cameras -- as with the Nikon Coolpix S10 reviewed here -- or inside the lenses themselves.
The Nikon’s vibration reduction is achieved by rapidly moving the sensor in the body to counter any camera shake. Pentax and Sony, in their SLRs, also use the in-body approach. It works well. With long lenses, such as is fitted to the Nikon S10 and other super-zooms with 10x ranges, some form of vibration reduction is essential. It is almost impossible to hold a camera steady enough to get sharp pictures when the lens is extended to 380mm focal length.
The other optical-mechanical approach to vibration reduction is in-lens. Panasonic fit all their cameras with image stabilisation that is achieved by moving a lens element against the direction of the unwanted motion. Nikon and Canon also use in-lens IS for their interchangeable SLR lenses.
Be warned! Cameras are now appearing that boast “blur reduction” when all they do is automatically increase the ISO rating and shutter speed to the highest minimum at which shutter speed can counter shake. One company boasts that its “Picture Stabilisation Technology…at the touch of a button will select the correct light sensitivity and best shutter speed to help provide high quality digital photographs without blur.” That is not true vibration reduction. Don’t let the sales person pull the wool over your eyes. Insist on the genuine article. Only true optical-mechanical methods deserve the tag of image stabilisation or vibration reduction.
*
Posted by terry at 05:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
[ REVIEW—NIKON Coolpix S10 ]
NIKON Coolpix S10 digital camera
Price: $600
Highly recommended
The low-down: This 6 megapixel camera is the successor to Nikon’s first consumer digital cameras, created with the split body that carries the lens in one part and the processor and LCD screen in the other.
The S10 has 6 megapixels -- exactly the right number for a compact camera -- and a 38–380mm (film equivalent) zoom lens. The lens zoom and focus mechanism is entirely in-bodym meaning that the lens does not extend as it zooms. And the lens itself is excellent, focussing quickly with just the slightest hesitancy at the long end and producing pin-sharp images.
The sharpness of the images is helped with the vibration reduction mechanism that moves the sensor to counteract camera shake. It works well.
This is the first camera without an optical viewfinder that we have used outdoors without feeling that we were shooting blind. The fact that the LCD can be swivelled in relation to the lens helps to find the best viewing angle in sunlight.
The viewfinder segment can swivel to face forward, a boon for photo-Rembrandts who fancy self-portraits.
The ergonomics of the camera take some getting used to. The shutter release button feels to be in the wrong place. It ought to be where the menu navigation joystick is positioned.
Like this: Image quality is very good and we attribute this in part to Nikon’s decision to stick with 6 mp rather than getting into the pixel war.
Dislike that: The S10 hides some important controls under layers of menu. Not to have instant access to exposure adjustment -- the most frequently used correction in a digital camera -- is inexcusable. The most humble point and shoot cameras put exposure compensation buttons on the camera body.
Parting shot: The S10 is a good camera with some compromises that look as though they have been forced on the designers by the marketing department who want to promise the customer a camera that does all the thinking, right down to recognising a face just in case you don’t know what one looks like!
Posted by terry at 05:04 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 15, 2007
[ REVIEW—CASIO EXILIM Z1000 CAMERA ]
CASIO EXILIM Z1000 camera
Price: $700
Average
The low-down: This is a 10 megapixel compact point and shoot camera. It has a lens zoom range of 38-114mm, film equivalent. The ISO sensitivity range is 50 to 3200, but that is more theoretical than actual.
The camera has a face area just slightly larger than a credit card and it is 22.4mm thick, so it is a true pocket camera. It has a 72mm LCD screen and no optical viewfinder.
Exposure and white balance are generally good but focus is hit-and-miss when the lens is at its longest extension. Responsiveness is good.
Casio claims that the camera has “anti shake” but this is not genuine image stabilisation in the lens or body. The camera automatically increases the ISO to a point where shutter speed will be fast enough -- they hope -- to overcome camera shake.
Increasing the sensitivity produces bad image noise. ISO200 is the top useable speed. A 10 megapixel sensor of such small dimensions is bound to have this problem. Why do they do it? 7 megapixels will produce an A3 print -- it is enough.
Like this: When everything works well the images are clean and smooth, nicely detailed and accurately coloured.
Dislike that: The preview image on the LCD screen is invisible in normal daylight. Even reviewing the shots is almost impossible outdoors.
Parting shot: This camera is in the fashion accessory category. It is an indoors camera, although the flash is not very powerful.
The terms “image stabilisation”, “vibration reduction” or “anti shake” should be reserved for true IR, either in the lens, by rapidly shifting an element to counter camera shake, or in the body by moving the sensor itself to cancel out wobble. Some camera makers are claiming image stabilisation when all they are doing is increasing the shutter speed automatically when the ersatz stabilisation button is pressed.
The Casio EX-Z850 (rrp $600) has 8 megapixels and an optical viewfinder. It is an attractive alternative to consider.
Posted by terry at 11:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
[ PRESERVING PRECIOUS PICTURES ]
MRS DPEXPERT HAS CREATED an interesting photo longevity test laboratory on the fridge. Being besotted with her two granddaughters she displays their pictures on the ubiquitous gallery wall of the Westinghouse door.
Mr dpexpert likes the pictures but he is also interested in watching them fade. A kitchen is just about the worst environment in which to display unprotected inkjet prints because one of the causes of fading, along with simple exposure to light, is airborne pollution.
We have on the kitchen wall a poster print made from a slide and mounted on chipboard that has been there for more than twenty years without fading. On the fridge door we have inkjet prints that have been there less than two years and they have already faded to the point where they might as well be removed. The difference between the life expectancy of a silver halide print and an inkjet print is immediately apparent.
We also have a framed inkjet print on the wall that has the back completely sealed with paper so that little or no air moves over the surface of the print. This shows no signs of fading even though it is exposed to ambient light during the day.
Unframed, fully exposed prints on the wall show different fading effects depending on a couple of factors. One four year old photo printed on a Canon photo printer using Canon inks on Canon paper shows very slight fading, mainly showing up as a bronze tint in solid black areas.
Another unframed print on third party paper using third party inks has faded dramatically to the point where it is no longer suitable for display.
Prints kept in albums and folders keep reasonably well and again there is a difference between those made on manufacturer’s paper with the authentic ink and those using third party media.
Fridge door prints may be intended to be ephemeral, constantly replaced as the children grow. But if the intention is to keep a running record of their development then it is worth protecting them from the worst effects of fading.
Zetta Florence Design, 197 Brunswick Street Fitzroy (www.zettaflorence.com) sells mylar sleeves in various sizes that protect prints from the worst effects of air pollution. The mylar tends to sit flat on the print surface rather like a laminate. The material doesn’t have distorting flaws like cellophane or ordinary plastic and it should be chemically inert, not making its own contribution to print deterioration.
Imaging has a number of prized prints enclosed in the mylar sleeves and they are well preserved and look good because the mylar is more like glass than it is like plastic. Zetta also sells polypropylene sleeves which are suitable for storage but not for display because they lack the total transparency of mylar.
Imaging has only been making prints from inkjet printers for five years and already we see fading on prints that have been kept in the dark away from air movement. In every case the faded prints are on either third party paper or made using third party inks. It looked like a bargain at the time but it has turned out to be a poor investment.
At this stage in the development of digital photography there doesn’t seem to be any printing system that will match silver halide for print life. Pigment based systems, such as Epson uses in photo printers, promise extended print life but they haven’t been around long enough to really prove their worth.
We have a gallery of eighteen year old, fully exposed Cibachrome prints on the wall that show no signs of fading or colour shift at all. The moral of the story is that if you have pictures that you want to hand on to the grandchildren when they turn twenty-one then it might be best to have the prints made in a photo laboratory using the venerable optical/chemical system of printing.
Posted by terry at 11:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 08, 2007
[ REVIEW—NIKON D80 DSLR ]
Price: $1800 body or $2250 with Nikkor 18-135mm lens
Camera body highly recommended
The low-down: This camera is the 10 megapixel replacement for the Nikon D70S. The excellent ergonomics of the old camera carry over into the new.
The camera is very responsive with short mirror blackout and fast autofocus. Exposure using any of the three modes is good and rendering of detail is exemplary. We are particularly impressed with the wide dynamic range and the generally good auto white balance.
Nikon have not included automatic dust removal from the sensor which makes it the odd camera out in this price range. Dust is such a problem with digital SLRs that this is a factor to take into consideration.
The D80 body is superb. It is light but balances nicely with most lenses and feels well in the hand. The viewfinder is large and bright, showing essential shooting information at the bottom of the view area.
High ISO performance is particularly good. Finicky purists will no doubt find noise in high ISO shots but realistic photographers will be amazed at the image quality at ISO1600. We turned the in-camera noise reduction off to test the D80’s true performance and were convinced that this is the way to use it. We prefer to do the noise reduction, if it is necessary, post-camera.
Like this: These are small points, but important -- a good, comprehensive user’s manual and the transparent protector that clips on over the LCD screen that keeps it clean and free of moisture. Why don’t all makers offer this gadget? So cheap, so simple and so useful.
Dislike that: The kit lens is not up to the quality of the camera body. The Nikkor 18-135mm zoom is not particularly sharp, perhaps because of inherent low contrast. Pin cushion distortion is severe. Putting a better quality lens on the camera produced noticeable improvement in image quality.
Parting shot: This camera is a worthy successor to the D70 and no doubt Nikon have another winner. It’s a pity that once again we have been disappointed by a kit lens. This is the one area where most makers are cutting costs. It is false economy.
[ Sample images from the Nikon D80 are in the Gallery ]
Posted by terry at 10:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
[ LEARNING FROM THE MASTERS ]
THE TWO MOST COMMON QUERIES that come dpexpert's way are: what camera should I buy and, more plaintively, how can I improve my pictures?
The answer to the second question is to look and learn. Here’s the sad truth. In the art of photography there are very few true originals who dare to take photos that break old rules and set new ones. The rest of us are imitators.
dpexpert has spent the past 50 years imitating Ansel Adams, Wyn Bullock and Philippe Halsman without much success, but at least the greats have given inspiration and set some standards to aim for.
In just this spirit we travelled up to Bendigo last week to see what we could learn from the exhibition at the art gallery of “The world’s most photographed.”
This collection of photographs of Queen Victoria, Garbo, Hitler, Gandhi, James Dean, J F Kennedy, Muhammad Ali, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn originated at the National Portrait Gallery in London and is on show in Bendigo until 25 March, after which it moves to the Newcastle Region Art Gallery for three months.
Each subject is represented by a group of photographs from different photographers, taken at different times in their lives. Do we learn anything?
First, you improve your chances of getting the great shot by taking as many pictures as possible. All of the photographs in the collection are by professionals working with film and silver halide chemistry. Nevertheless they did not stint when it came to clicking the shutter. Albert Wertheimer recognised an up-and-coming star in Elvis when he approached him with his camera in 1956. He took 4000 photographs in one extended shoot.
Most of Wertheimer’s pictures are banal. Were it not for the fame of the subject we wouldn’t even be looking at them. But what makes them interesting for imitators is that most of them were taken with available light. Or, as the photographer says, “available darkness”, using just the room lighting or a ray or two through a window, probably using the fastest black and white film he could get. Had he used flash the intimacy of the photos would have been destroyed.
If 4000 pictures sounds a lot spare a thought for Hitler’s official snapper, Heinrich Hoffman. From 1939–1945 Hoffmann and his assistants took 2.5m photos of the Fuhrer. Still the best picture in the Hitler group is a casual snap of him looking out of the window of a plane at the Stalingrad catastrophe. It was taken by Walter Frentz and is an example of the opportunistic photograph taken because the camera was at hand and ready.
The most famous of the posed photographs in the exhibition are Irving Penn’s picture of JFK in his rocking chair, Marilyn Monroe’s studio nude shot that became Playboy’s first centrefold and James Dean slouching through Time Square with a fag in his mouth and his shoulders hunched against the cold. Only the Dean picture is memorable for its own sake rather than for the fame of its subject, so that is the one that teaches us most about light and composition.
The most beautifully composed and lit photo in the exhibition is Margaret Bourke White’s superb image of Gandhi at his spinning wheel. Apparently she had intended to use three remotely controlled flash bulbs to light the scene but two were duds. She was lucky. Had the scene been evenly lit it would have been ordinary. As it is the dramatic side lighting from the one bulb that fired is startling. And the lesson for the amateur imitator is never admit that your great shot is an accident. Pretend you know what you’re doing. It won’t hurt.
*
Posted by terry at 10:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 05, 2007
[ COMET MCNAUGHT OVER S.E. AUSTRALIA ]
THIS SPECTACULAR PHOTOGRAPH of Comet McNaught was taken by Melbourne photographer Mark Boland in January 2007. [Click on the image to see a lager version of the picture.]
Mark used a Nikon D200 for the shot.
*
Posted by terry at 12:16 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
[ FIX YOUR DEFECTS ]
SPEAKING OF INEXPENSIVE ZOOM LENSES lenses with bold ambitions, as we are in the review of the Sigma 18-200 lens today, even though they tend to exhibit predictable distortions there is help at hand.
Photoshop, Photoshop Elements and Paint Shop Pro all have filters for correcting the common lens distortions -- barrel, pincushion, vignetting and chromatic aberrations.
Barrel distortion is a characteristic effect from lenses used at or near the wide angle zoom limit. It shows up in pictures as vertical and horizontal lines bowing outwards, which means that it is only noticeable in photographs of buildings or book pages. You won’t spot it in photos of the cat and the kids.
Pincushion distortion occurs at the other end of the zoom range and appears as straight lines curving inwards to the centre of the image -- once again only obvious in pictures of objects with straight lines near the edge of the frame.
Vignetting is caused by uneven distribution of light onto the film or sensor and is seen as a gradual darkening of the image towards the edges.
Chromatic aberrations are usually seen in high contrast light where a hard edged object, such as a leaf, is photographed against a bright background, such as the sky. This is sometimes called “purple fringing” and has particularly plagued point and shoot compact digital cameras.
In Photoshop Elements there is a filter set that appears in the Filter drop down menu called Correct Camera Distortion. In Photoshop CS the same filter set is found under Filter/Distort/Lens Correction. In Paint Shop Pro the filter is under Adjust/Photo Fix and then select the type of distortion to be corrected.
Using the filters is easy. In the Photoshops there is a single slider that moved one way corrects barrel and moved the other fixes pincushion. The effect is displayed immediately in an interactive image overlayed with a grid of straight lines.
In the Photoshops all the lens corrections are grouped in a single dialogue box, including vignetting and chromatic aberrations. As with linear distortions the process is controlled by sliders.
There is another useful correcting filter in the Photoshop group that fixes converging verticals. This is the phenomenon of the tall building, photographed from the ground looking up, that appears to taper to a narrow point at the top, with the walls sloping away from the vertical. Once again the correction effect is controlled by sliders and the change to the image is instantly previewed.
Professional photographers correct for converging verticals with very expensive perspective shifting lenses. Mere mortals can do much the same, if not with quite the perfect results of the pros, with Photoshop.
These corrections are best done on a copy of the original image before any cropping or other changes are made. Obviously once an image is cropped the centre may be displaced which will have an effect on the way the correction filters work.
The very fact that photo editing programs include these correcting filters is an indication of how common the problem of distortion is, particularly with zoom lenses. Even quite extreme distortion, which is more or less expected in inexpensive, long range zooms, can be corrected easily -- it’s just a matter of spending time at the computer. Which means that when a review says that a lens has “noticeable distortion” that is not a killer argument against buying it.
*
Posted by terry at 12:04 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 04, 2007
[ SIGMA DC 18—200MM ZOOM LENS ]
Sigma DC 18-200mm zoom lens
Price: $500 (Pentax, Nikon or Canon mount)
Recommended
The low-down: This lens has a film-equivalent zoom range of 27 to 300mm, wide enough for architecture shots in narrow streets and long enough for wildlife photography.
dpexpert has expressed some scepticism in the past about these improbably long zooms but we have to admit that Sigma has produced a useful lens albeit with some compromises.
This lens is only for digital single lens reflex cameras and that makes the design and manufacture a little easier than for film cameras. The digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm film frame so the area of glass doesn’t need to be as great. Even so this is a slow lens -- f3.5 at the wide angle end, which is not bad, but only f6.3 at the telephoto end.
Distortion is noticeable. Both barrel (at the wide end) and pincushion (at the tele end) are apparent.
Focus can be slow on low contrast subjects and mechanically noisy. The lens produces a warm colour cast on images -- ideally a lens should be colour neutral.
Like: Construction quality is good and the lens is amazingly compact. The zoom mechanism has sufficient friction that the lens doesn’t slide out when it is held vertically which is an annoying tendency in some kit zooms.
Dislike: The slow focus and the warm colour.
Verdict: There is an objective scientific review of this lens on the German fotozone site. Their conclusion is that the lens involves the compromises to be expected in such an ambitious zoom range in such an inexpensive lens.
While the lens is recommended for its combination of versatility and reasonable price we would still urge consideration of two or more shorter range zooms covering the same focal lengths. The excellent Sigma 17-70mm lens is a good starting point, plus a Sigma 180mm prime for the times when a longer reach is needed. You know what they say about free lunches.
*
Posted by terry at 11:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack