Back to The Future.... In Photography

You've probably noticed that I've gone slightly "off the tracks". I know some of you are quietly saying that you've known this for years! I haven't yet decided that it's due to age induced nostalgia, or that I am in fact on to something. But here's the thing: I'm beginning to think that shooting pictures with film is different than shooting them in digital..... and "NO", I don't mean the technical difference in the medium which is an argument that will go on forever. No, I mean the psychology of shooting something that's permanent vs. what we know full well, we can and will simply delete because it isn't quite what we want it to be, then shoot again.

If you're "old" like me, you remember constantly keeping an eye on the frame counter to make sure you don't run out of it at a critical time. I even remember back when I was doing some "professional" work, I'd even sacrifice a few frames toward the end of a roll, and replace it with a fresh one just to make certain that you weren't caught reloading at an inopportune time. I even clearly remember luxuriating in the feel of having the relatively expansive 36 exposure rolls vs. the 24! There's nothing quite like that "film awareness" to keep you focus on getting the most from each frame.

I feel like I do a pretty good job of it when I'm using the D300, which is a weighty and serious camera. This is particularly true when I've got the old 50mm/f1.4 Nikkor attached, since it's manual focus only. However, it's still not quite the same. I find myself, spending more time making sure that either the automation is off, or I am in fact overriding it correctly, than simply setting and shooting. 

So, I find that the vast majority of the time when I want that simple connection of working with the light, I turn to the D40 with one of my collection of manual lenses. Since they have no connection to the body other than the mechanics of the mount, they really only pass and focus light. Yes, I'm aware that I can simply turn the settings on the D300 to manual and essentially do the same thing. But it's not the same mindset as having no other recourse.

In recent months, I've been involved in a bit of collecting with old photographic equipment. It started when my brother sent me some of his old gear with included a Topcon Uni. It's quite old and not really a practical "user", but it got me thinking and looking at old equipment. That, in combination of my posts regarding a "compact" DSLR system and the role of the Konica TC had in my consciousness really stirred the cobwebs in the old memory. So, I bought one. It was all of about $15 after shipping and had no lens, but did include peeling leatherette cover at no extra charge. I don't have the slightest idea if it works or not since the batteries it uses are no longer produced. I do have a couple of lenses for it though, so...... 

Yeah, this could be me. OK, no Jimmy Stewart spying on his murderous neighbor with the stunning Grace Kelly, but heh!?! OK, no weird Exacta VX camera or giant 400mm lens either. However, I do have some film in the cabinet here and I could see myself taking an old camera out every now and then to shoot a roll. What if that Konica isn't in "shooting" condition?

Here's what I'd love to use. A Minolta XE-7 (XE in Japan, XE-1 in Europe). It's the very first camera that I ever fell completely in love with.... back in something like 1973/4. It's in my humble opinion; the most beautiful single lens reflex camera ever made (especially when mounted with an MC Rokkor-X 50mm/f1.4 lens). They seem to go pretty routinely in the $35 range. It's a "dead system" (kind of like Latin as a language), so there is relatively little competition for the lenses. Of course there's the EVIL (electronic view interchangeable lens) crowd who adapt lenses to their cameras, but those guys are still relatively rare. They tend to concentrate on old Nikkors and Zuikos, driving those prices up! Will this become a successful experiment? Who knows. I just think it's important, and fun, to shake things up every now and then. Oh yeah; that pictures up at the top? The Contax RTS, arguably the most beautiful SLR ever made (designed by Porche); it's just eye candy. You can pick up one of the bodies for like $50, but those lenses go for ridiculous money these days!

A New Camera For A Friend

Last week, I had a rather extensive discussion with a friend/co-worker/acquaintance about her desire to replace her camera and the plethora (and confusing variety) of choices out there today. We probably talked about it for the better part of half and hour with no clear front-runner. So I told her that I'd think about it and send her an email with some thoughts on the topic. Well: here are the thoughts on that topic!

How is this different than the myriad of articles that I've written about my camera buying travails? Well.... it's not for me, and as far as I can tell, she's not saddled with the baggage I lug around. Let's break this down then. The potential user is a young, bright and educated woman with some skills and experience with photography having already owned a early Sony DSLR (I can only assume that it was an A100 or 200) which she's already given up to a family member. So no baggage to speak of there, although there's some possibility that she might come into some "old" Nikon film equipment at some point down the road. This is duly noted but not an overriding issue such as my desire to acquire and use old glass. She's an educator, who has the ability, where-with-all and desire to travel extensively. In light of this, she's already done a little investigation into the Nikon One cameras.  So EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens) cameras are definitely "in the mix". 

Let's start here. I'd say that she's looking for something that will fit her during her travels and not the other way around. Therefore, compact is going to be a major attribute that will be desired. This keeps all the EVIL types, ranging from micro-4/3rds, and smaller like the Nikon One on up to the APC-C type sensors. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath-water here! We'll still keep the lower (smaller) end of the Digital SLR cameras as well. These are often not much bigger than the better EVILs. Let's get down to specifics then.

The general type of "mirrorless" cameras as pioneered by Olympus with Micro 4/3rds have been wildly successful and unless I'm missing my guess, it will supplant  SLR as the most common type of advanced cameras some time in the next couple of decades. They take images of a technical quality virtually indistinguishable from DSLRs given equal conditions and they are generally smaller and lighter. They not only have the ability to interchange lenses, but can universally be adapted to SLR lenses due to requiring less "back-spacing". Of course you lose all automation when using said adapters, but hey, there is always "manual"! My main objection to them is that they are generally NOT equipped with an optical viewfinder and therefore often difficult to use outside in bright sunlight. And there is my personal objection to any camera without a viewfinder.... is that they encourage the user to do as you can see depicted above..... that's right, holding the camera away from the body thus introducing more hand-held vibration to the equation! Grrrr! But you say, most have accessory viewfinders that you can purchase and attach to solve that issue! Two problems with that scenario. If I spend several hundred dollars for a camera: A. I expect it to work optimally without having to buy an accessory, and B. attaching one of those things on top makes them just about as bulky as an DSLR!

Ahhh, but what about the Sony Nex 6 and 7? Yup, that's indeed a good solution and with a bigger APS-C sized sensor as well. Therefore, as far as EVIL cameras are concerned, this is the direction I would go. Either the one of the Sony Nex models with a viewfinder or the Fuji equivalent. That's it? EVIL wins?

Yeah..... kinda, not really. In the last year, the "old line" camera companies (eg. Canon, Nikon) showed that they still have a few tricks up their sleeves. Canon brought out the Rebel SL-1 and as you can see compared to the 6D, it's significantly smaller (even with the bigger lens attached). Plus it as the same sensor as the T4i! 

In the meantime, Nikon brought out it's new entry-level D3300 with the all new collapsing 18-55mm kit lens. That body is almost as small as my D40, bu the lens is quite a bit smaller than anything in it's class. You really have to go into a store and hold the camera to "get it". That's what you go to stores like Best Buy and Fry's for, but for Pete's Sakes, just don't buy it there!

So, at the end of the day; what is my recommendation? I'd go into a brick and mortar store(s) with a short list based on my criteria. Then I'd hold them, play with the controls, play with them some more. Go home without buying anything. Be a "pest" to friends (like me) who have similar cameras and see if you can borrow them for a while. Take pictures. Look at your pictures. Get a sense of which ones had controls and menus that you feel more comfortable with using. Then go to the stores and do it again. The fact is that all these cameras will take better pictures than you can, so that's really not the issue. The issue is to find one that you'll take good pictures with AND that you'll be happy to carry around. Even though I'm not a huge fan of the Nikon One cameras, they'll take WAY better pictures than your phone or tablet that you used because you didn't want to carry your "big" camera.

The "Compact Camera" Reunion

Back in mid-December, while in the middle of my "Compact Camera" series, I wrote a post talking about my photographic roots. Of course, roots about anything for techno-geeks usually involves hardware and in this case, the Konica TC which back in the mid-70's was the object of my teenage photographer lust. In that post, I really only referenced it, but never really got into the discussing that camera and what drew me to it at the time. 

So, let's back up and start more or less from the beginning when pharmacist Rokusaburo Sugiura began selling photographic supplies at his store, the Konishiya Rokube in 1873. Note, that this pre-dates Kodak! Five years later, he gave the original shop to his younger brother and opened a new one called the Konishi Honten in the Nihonbashi district of Tokyo. In 1902, Konishi began selling the "Cherry Portable Camera", and later, the Konica I in 1948. So you can see, there's a little bit of history there and not just what most people think of today as a copier company called Konica/Minolta which had exited the photography business in March of 2006. In the intervening years, the Konica name developed quite a reputation for not only their fine cameras, but their Hexanon line of lenses which are generally thought of as top-notch. In their day, comparable to Nikkors, Canons, and Rokkors. 

So, it was in this state of affairs that I became enamored of Konica products. Nikons were just too professional (read expensive), Canons were too clunky, Olympus' too expensive and Minolta's stodgy. I was like the legendary little blond in the bear's house! Really, lenses were a non-issue. They were all good, and I couldn't afford any of them!

And that's were the situation stood in 1976; my freshman year of high school. Looking around at the lower end of all the major player's camera lines was an exercise in frustration, until the launch of the TC. I'm going to bet that the TC stood for Autoreflex "T" Compact. In any case, it had everything I wanted; great roots, impressive family of lenses and accessories, shutter-priority automation. WooHoo!!! What more could a 15 year old aspiring photojournalist want!?! As I've discuss before, I spent the summer of '76 and pretty much all the following year pining for this camera. However, by the time I had earned enough money to earnestly contemplate purchase, the Canon A-1 had come along and as they say; "that's all she wrote". 

 If, that's all she wrote, then why are we even having this discussion? Please humor me on this. Let's start by looking at the above image. Yes, it's a TC; so what? First of all, let me describe it's physical size for you: somewhat larger than the Olympus OM series/Pentax MX/ME which were the smallest of that day, but clearly smaller than it's contemporary, which was often described as "compact" Canon AE-1. Furthermore, as depicted it's fitted with the 40mm/f1.8 "pancake" which as introduced with the later FS-1, this is truly a compact camera. Small enough to fit in a coat pocket, but large enough not to feel awkward in "man-sized" hands!

"Holy Deja Vu" CameraMan! Yup, it's the compact camera rig, before my "compact camera" rig. Yes, yes, I'm aware that there are lots of makers out there during those 30 years between the two camera that made something similar. But the similarities in function, feature set between the two are astounding to me. Until a few days ago when I started reading collector websites about the TC, I had no idea that I had either been completely unaware of, or subconsciously recreated a modern day compact camera in the idiom of my first love. It's a little like those stories you hear about people who go a high school class reunion and rediscover an old flame!

 

I Always Get My.....Lens

As you guys probably have already figured out. If I decide I have a use for something, I'll probably get it. It might not be immediately, but I'll snag it eventually....at my price. Now if I could just make this work for a Porsche..... Anyway, you've probably also figured out that I'm talking about the Nikon "E Series" 28mm/f2.8 lens. Yes, I'm aware that it's a 5 element optical formula that's decidedly inferior to the 6 or 7 element Nikkors, but hey; I'm not looking for perfection. It's as close as I could get with the list of compromises that I'm working with on this project.

You remember. It all goes back to my pancake obsession. I wanted a compact camera with a pancake lens for just about forever. Which over time has led me over a convoluted trail starting with an Olympus Evolt E-330, to the Micro 4/3rds Panasonic GF-1, to the Nikon D50, and finally now to the Nikon D40. The size and performance of which, I've decided makes a good solution for me.

And that landed me here; the Tamron Adaptall-2 28-50mm/f3.5-4 "Muffin", which is the "walk-around" lens that's normally mounted on to the D40. That doesn't mean that I've stopped coveting a smaller, lighter and faster lens for a "street-shooter" role. Yesterday, I snagged one of the "E" Spec, 28mm/f2.8s on eBay. I fully intend to attach a Dandelion chip on it and make it electronically compatible to the digital Nikons. That's to make it faster handling exposure-wise when it's used in that role, but also to give myself experience in mounting the Dandelion CPU on a cheap ($60) lens.

Is there anything else, that my scheming little brain has locked on to? Of course. It is me you know, the Dr. Gru of technology. Early this year, along with the D3300, Nikon released the 18-55mm VRII. This a smaller, lighter, collapsing version of their long-running "kit" lens. They've not only shrunken it, but also revised it's optics for better performance as well. Only issue? Brand-new, MSRP of $250, and research is showing that, that's what retailers are selling it at right now. So yeah, despite it's almost perfect feature set and size for the intended purpose, it'll be awhile before I'll be able to get my grubby mitts on one.

In the meantime, I might turn myself into a collector of Nikon "E Series" lenses. Why not, now that I've already snagged the worse performer of the line! It can only go up from here, right!?!

"Good Glass Is, As Good Glass Does"

You might be able to tell by the Post title, that this is a little bit of a different piece. And no: it isn't some sort of a Confucius saying..... it's adapted from that famous and fictitious Alabaman, Forrest Gump of course.

I realize that I've spent a lot of the last couple of months talking about cameras, lenses, and flashes. Unlike my other topics, such as computing equipment, who's function is self-evident, photography equipment demands a higher level of proof. By nature of the beast, we want to see what it does. For the last 2 weeks, I've been doing just that; culminating in last night's visit to the Chinese Lantern Festival at Fair Park, here in Dallas. 

It gave a perfect sample of something that most any family photography might encounter. An outing that offered challenging lighting, subject material, sometimes awkward shooting angles in a crowd, and an event that demanded to be recorded! 

I carried my high-powered camera, the D300, but mounted the 18-70mm (27-105mm eq.) lens instead of the 18-200mm super-zoom. I didn't need reach, but needed the extra half-stop of light that the shorter lens gave me at the long end. I gave up the VR function of the longer lens for that. I'm sure, looking at the lighting in the pictures, you can see why. Although I carried the flash, I didn't use it at all. I'm sure most of you understand that virtually none of the colored lights would have shown up when using the flash. I'll actually show you an image later where I used a flash, how and why I did it. 

In this case, the stage lighting was plenty to get the performers, but I had to also get the colored lights of the stage as well. So, I ended up using a very high ISO, which the D300 does very well without too much "noise" so I would high enough shutter speed to stop the action. In actuality, I didn't want to completely stop the action, I wanted to have some sense of motion without completely blurring the performer. And that's why I used the manual focus, 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor that my brother sent me. Sure, I would have loved for it to be a little "longer", but it was OK, at the 75mm that the APS-C sensor sees it at. This ultra-fast lens allowed me to see a VERY bright image in the finder which helped with the focusing. 

For these other pictures? I used the AF zoom for it's ability to frame exactly from the angle I wanted to use. It turned out to be easier than I thought since the "lanterns" themselves gave off plenty of light which leaned more toward "daylight" than night. Everything was fine as long as you didn't get too much of the night around the subject(s) to throw the camera off. 

Before we go away from the D300 and the 50mm Nikkor, here's another reason for it's use. Not only is it very sharp (barring photographer error), it can also give you as thin of a depth of field as you want! Check out this Crepe Myrtle "berries" encased in ice from our early December storm. 

 

Now, on to the D40 and it's stable of manual focus lenses that I've been jammering about. The first picture is of course from the same ice storm, but it was shot with the $15, Tamron Adaptall 300mm lens. The second is from some time later to demonstrate it's sharpness, contrast of color rendition. 

Then last weekend, we ran up to northeastern, Oklahoma to see some relatives. This happened right after the arrival of the Tamron Adaptall-2 28-50mm lens. It was the pricey acquisition at $40, but hey; we all need to occasionally splurge..... right! It was quite challenging to focus in the indoor pool of our hotel, but the unique underwater lights gave a very interesting effect. So I decided to play around a little. I knew if I adjusted for the ambient light, I could get it, but then, I'd have a fine picture of a pool. If I wanted my kids to be visible in the picture, I'd have to use a flash. As it turns out; I found to my dismay that the Quantaray XLF-50 is Nikon iTTL automatic ONLY!!! As such, will not work with a manual lens mounted. So I went completely manual, shot some test frames, to find that; what I read some years ago was true. If you use a slower shutter speed, it lets in more ambient light, and the flash cycle will stop the subject motion in the foreground. Using the D40's pop-up flash; as you can see, it did just that! My other pictures were of our relatives which of course, I don't want to use without their permission, so you'll have to trust me in that the D40 handles beautifully with the 28-50mm Tamron and that it's a perfect carry camera for random stuff.

Now you know. I actually do shoot photographs with the bargain equipment that I seek out!
 

The Compact DSLR System: Part 2

Every time I think of a compact camera "system", I think of this thing. Introduced in 1978 into a world where the mystique of James Bond had yet to be diluted. After the first few of the film series, there was always the inevitable interlude with "Q" where he would briefly go through the new gadgets for that particular episode. Over the years, there have been assorted knives, cameras, guns, explosives, and specialized vehicles. They all seem to be delivered in some sort of specially fitted case. Maybe that explains my obsession with cases! Anyway; I digress. It's really the completeness of the "system" that I want to discuss in this part of my Compact DSLR System series. 

As amazing as today's DSLRs are, they still can't do everything by themselves.... not if you want them to be any good at it! I must say though, compared to the days of yore, there is quite a lot in there: automated frame advance (no need for a winder/motor drive), pop-up flash, kit zoom, and all manner of other abilities that used to take some random gizmo that needed to be bought. All that being said though, if you want to get the most out of your camera, you do need to assemble a "kit" of sorts, even today.

So, let's look at my kit. I think we can dispense with any further discussion on how I derived at using the Nikon D40. All of you will be able to come up with your camera based on your needs and financial commitments. Let's start at the len(es) then. My intention is to be able to go from a "normal" wide out to a rather long telephoto. For my needs, that would be a 35mm camera equivalent of 28mm to 300mm which translates to be 18-200mm in APS-C (or DX), which is 14-150mm if you are doing 4/3rds or m4/3rds. For me, the base lens will be the Tamron 28-50mm zoom which gives me a range of 42-75mm eq. I can throw in the 70-150mm Vivitar made by Kiron which has a matched multiplier giving me 105-450mm depending on whether I have the MM on or off. My alternative is to use the Tamron 300mm f/5.6 prime lens instead. What about wide? I have my 18-70mm AF-S Nikon for that. 

Funny story about this lens. After spending a weekend with the new Tamron 28-50mm zoom, I started wondering what I'd have to give up if I wanted a little more reach. This led me to the 24mm focal length which would be about equal to a 35mm wide-angle. While researching that idea, I found that Nikon had/has (?) in AF-S of 24-85mm AF-S in their line-up. It looked to be not too expensive at between $70 and $125. So I started looking at it's physical size to make sure it wasn't going to overpower the D40. I found that the filter diameter was 67mm....... hey wait-a-minute!?! That set off alarm bells in my head! It sounded all-fully familiar! Yeah; that lens is virtually identical in size and weight to my 18-70mm AF-S Nikkor that I use for portraits mounted on the D300. The 35mm eq. is 28-105mm! Don't need to buy a lens at all! So basically, I'm done with glass. Maybe, I'll pick up an "E Series" 28mm which would function as low-light (f2.8) or a "pancake" lens. 

So basically, if I want a really small kit to take places, I can pack the 18-70mm and the 70-150mm and be done with it. Two lenses and one convertor would give me the eq. of 28-450mm coverage! Wow, that's pretty slick. If I throw the 28-50mm into the luggage, then I can mount that in case I want a very small "walk-around" lens, which is the physical size of an old "normal". There's a couple of things, yeah.

The Quantaray XLF-50 (Sunpak RD2000), I picked up last month. Very small, not a bunch more powerful than the pop-up, but can be bounced and has a diffuser panel.

And there's the bag. I'm going to use a tiny little Timbuk2 "messenger" style bag, that'll hold the camera, the flash and at least one other lens, along with batteries, memory cards etc. It's great since it completely doesn't look like a camera bag, folds flat, when I need it to, and cost $6 at Goodwill. And that, folks, is pretty much all there is to my compact DSLR system.

So, now that we're done (of course I'll do more later), let's total up. Starting point was the $175, that I sold the D50 for, then of course, the D40 with the 18-55mm "kit" lens was bought for the same amount. Zero sum at this point. The lens sold for $99, and it cost me $10 to ship it, bringing that transaction to $89, which puts me in the plus range. The 28-50mm Tamron was $39.99, which makes the "package" cost to me to be about $135. I had previously bought the flash to go with the D50 so there was no $$ involved with it. So, even if you put the Tamron 300mm ($15), AND the forthcoming 85-210mm ($18) into the equation, on top of the eBay transaction fee from selling the "kit" zoom of $8, I'm still a few bucks in the plus range! I got all this all for the price of the willingness to focus.

The Lost Compact DSLR System: Part 1 1/2

At the beginning of 2001, it was reported that Olympus and Kodak was joining forces to create a consortium, based on a new standard for digital photography. Since then, Kodak has sadly folded, but the group has gone on to add more members. Of course the "old" standard is now pretty much dead, or some would say that it's morphed into the current "mirrorless" version of micro-4/3rds. 

No, that's not me, or my dad for that matter. That..... is the famed Yoshihisa Maitani. He joined Olympus in 1956 at the age of 23, and would go on to create the Pen, Pen F, and the M-1 (which we know as the OM-1) system while working for that company for the entirety of his illustrious career. Yeah, I have a little bit of a "man-crush" on him. 

Just looking at this cut-away of the Pen F; makes my jaw drop a little bit. It's a single lens reflex, but the mirror box has been turned sideways and so there's no tell-tale penta-prism. The guy is just unique.... and so were his designs. 

In the last few posts, I've been talking about the concept of the compact SLR which he pioneered when the OM-1 was introduced in 1972. The comparison with the then contemporary Practica is stark. One could still pass for modern today, and the other would look at home on the front seat of a Edsel. 

But to me, an even more astounding comparison is this image of if and the Nikon F fully configured for "combat" in their "professional" get-up, complete with motor drives..... WOW! No surprise that some pros were woo'd away to at least give it a try. 

This image is of the E-420. In September of 2006, it's almost identical predecessor, the E-400 was launched for Europe only. However, the Spring of 2007 saw the introduction of E-410, along with the E-510, and E-610 siblings. While the 510/610s had more features, the 410 pretty much had the same capabilities. This would be true of the follow-up model, E-420 as well. In these machines, Olympus finally fulfilled the promise of really compact dimensions that the smaller 4/3rds sensor should have given all along. 

When compared side by side, the differences between it and the Canon EOS Rebel XTi don't jump out at you, but it's really the disparity in mass that's the big thing here. Much of that is due to the size of the Canon lens. It takes a lot more glass to move the difference in light necessary to cover the larger sensor! So, with the bigger sensor, doesn't that make the Canon the clear winner here? Technically true, but in real life in the hands of photographers that these cameras are aimed at? Not even..... the difference isn't going to be anywhere near apparent. So, what do you gain? Well: there's size, there's weight and..... there's innovation. This isn't disparaging of Canon, or any other company for that matter. It's just that Olympus has carved their niche in the photographic world through innovation. They were the David of the Japanese camera manufacturing world and they still are! 

From the very beginning, Olympus has been committed to having a complete professional system. Like Nikon, Canon, and now Sony (previously Konica/Minolta), they have everything under the sun. But more importantly, there's a level of commitment to their product that some manufacturers simply don't have. 

If it's all that awesome, why don't I shoot with it, instead of Nikon? It was a close thing. My cameras could very well have been the above pictured E-3, and E-410 vs. the D-300, and D40 that I have sitting on my desk right now. When I made to switch to DSLR, it was one of the systems under consideration. The main difference came down to my desire to have at my disposal the literally millions of lenses that have been made for the Nikon "F" mount. That, and the availability of the 18-200mm VR super-zoom that not even Canon had at the time. However, I often wonder what it would have been like if I would have gone with Olympus instead of Nikon. 

I will tell you one thing: I'd have been darned irritated when the consortium dropped the old 4/3rds standard when they brought out m4/3rds in August of 2008! But if you don't mind using a "dead" standard and are happy with the lenses that were available for it, then this is a really nice system to be using. They are a little bit harder to find, but they send to sell for less than similarly equipped Canon, Nikons, and even Sonys. So, if yo have a penchant for the quirky, this might be the system for you.