Still Suspends
Still Suspends
Still Suspends
Still Suspends
Still Suspends

Blog

The D800 is nigh.

Despite ordering my D800 the night it was announced from Amazon, I apparently didn’t make the cut in their first shipment. This weekend they notified me that they again needed me to approve an extension of my preorder past the end of May, and I did so. Note that I’m not using the word “grudgingly” in that sentence or anything. Sure, I could claim that I’ve stalled on certain things while waiting for the D800 — the 365 project was one thing that I had intended to start when I was expecting to get my D800 in late March, but when that happened I went ahead without it anyway, for example — but overall, I’ve been a pretty patient customer, and I’ve gone out and shot in the meantime.

After approving the preorder extension on Amazon this weekend, though, I got notification today that they now expect my D800 to be in my hands by the end of the week. I’ll take that! But even if it doesn’t happen and I’m again left waiting, I’ll happily wait and shoot some of this new film I just got in the meantime!

PS. If I’m unfortunate enough that my D800′s battery is one of the recalled batteries, I luckily have an ace up my sleeve: when I ordered my D800 in February, I also ordered an extra battery at the time and received it months ago; I’ve already checked, and it’s clear of the recall.

Nikon 50mm 1.4G vs. 1.8D at the Palace Hotel

In comparing the Nikon 50mm 1.4G to the 50mm 1.8D, I at one point found myself at The Palace Hotel. I didn’t run a complete aperture series here, but I did fire off a quick comparison of the 1.4G and 1.8D at f/1.8. 1.4G shown, click or mouseover for the 1.8D:

For a good time, mouse in and out of this image quickly for a fun 3D effect.

In comparing these two shots, the 1.8D is a little bluer in my eyes and the 1.4G has a notably smoother bokeh, but more significantly it destroys points of light — in particular, note the candle “flames” on the frontmost chandelier. In the 1.4G’s image the shape of the lights is clearly visible, while in the 1.8D’s image the lightsources become mishapen blobs. This could indicate a focus error, but given the blobby shapes of points of light at different depths, I’m going to assume that’s the lens’s behavior.

“But the background of the 1.8D looks sharper,” you might say! Keep in mind this was f/1.8 at 1/500s, so if this shot had been taken in the wild we would have to assume there was some reason for that choice of aperture, and assuming the goal was some sort of isolation of that foreground chandelier, then I think the 1.4G clearly did the better job at rendering a shallow depth of field. Look at how messy the double paned glass looks in the top model on the 1.8D compared to the blur of the 1.4G.

In this comparison, there’s no doubt in my mind that I prefer the 1.4G — but if you’re really concerned, let me know which half of the Frankenchandelier you like better:

Frankenchandelier

PS. I apologize for not lining them up perfectly, and I’m also still working on how best to indicate and display which image is which and provide affordances for both mouse and touch use, but I’m intentionally starting with a simple case.

Baseball Photography

My interest in photographing baseball was pretty immediate, and as soon as I thought about it I knew I was going to want the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR as at least a first attempt at “sports” photography. It turns out it works pretty great on my D300, and while I’ve used a few other lenses along the way, the 70-300 is the real workhouse. For example:

Where's Waldo?

More soon… this is a placeholder to simply have more posts visible in my blog template for the moment.

Nikon F100 and Kodak Ultramax 400

In another fit of impatience for my D800, I bought a Nikon F100 from eBay — y’know, to experiment with the full frame perspective, I told myself.  Y’know, to experiment with film and broaden my artistic horizons, I told myself.  The latter is the more reasonable excuse, but they’re all excuses.  The upshot is, I had fun shooting a roll of film the other day for the first time since I bought a disposable camera in Brussels in 2004 — and I did *not* have fun shooting that disposable camera, so we’re actually talking 90s.

For comparison to the digital shot I took of these bikes a few days ago.

There was only one problem:  I had a camera (and a partially broken lens that came with the camera — more on that some day, and some batteries,) but no film.  So of course I fell down the rathole of reading film reviews, and trying to pick out a film to use with the camera sitting otherwise unused on my table, and there it sat for a week.  Finally I was at walgreens and saw that not only did they develop film, but also that they sold some film — Kodak Ultramax 400 — behind the counter, so to get the experiment off the ground I grabbed the film, fumbled through loading it, and off I went.

Before I loaded the film I reminded myself to check the ISO setting, which of course I promptly forgot for the first four shots, yielding a couple of decent exposures and an overexposure.

One nice aspect of the F100 is that it’s a modern Nikon SLR — pretty much all of my muscle memory from using a D300 and D90 very directly translated to using the F100.  Sure there are 20 some odd custom settings on the F100 and no menu screen to check them on, but the settings the used camera salesman left them on seemed innocuous.  I will go back and review them later, but so far so good.

365.028 2012-04-17, approximately 09:45:00

Other notes:

  • The 28mm was a pretty nice field of view on the full frame camera, though I’ll have to pixel peep on the lens later to see how it really performs.  The broken filter thread is annoying, but if I like the lens at all I’ll just get a filter to pop over it.
  • The 50mm was also a *great* field of view on full frame, and I foresee using that a lot more on my D800 than I ever did on my D300.
  • It feels like Walgreens chopped off the left edges of my pictures slightly;  I’ll have to go back and review the negatives, but avoiding tight framing might be a habit to learn on film.
  • Walgreens’ scans were also very low res, and their color was a little weird.  In general, I’ll probably be looking for another photo processor besides Walgreens, and I’ve already heard independent good things about SF Photoworks — I’ll have to check them out.
  • Breaking the habit of pulling the camera away from my face to check how the shot came out is going to be very difficult, but one that will probably ultimately help me take better digital pictures, too.

All in all, it was definitely a fun first experience, and I’ll definitely be shooting more film in the near future.  I suppose I should plan a few projects to shoot with film, and I’ll probably want to carry a digital body on the same shoot, but so far I’m happy with my investment.

Should you shoot film?  It probably depends, but I’m already leaning towards suggesting that any serious hobbyist photograph should at least give it a try (again.)

Thank you lord for sending me the F-ilm?


Baseball

Screen Shot 2012-04-20 at 13.49.06
Baseball Photography

My interest in photographing baseball was pretty immediate, and as soon as I thought about it I knew…

More in Baseball

Cameras

Screen Shot 2012-04-30 at 15.54.41
The D800 is nigh.

Despite ordering my D800 the night it was announced from Amazon, I apparently didn’t make the …

More in Cameras

Film

Screen Shot 2012-04-20 at 12.05.22
Nikon F100 and Kodak Ultramax 400

In another fit of impatience for my D800, I bought a Nikon F100 from eBay — y’know, to e…

More in Film