Quantcast
Channel: Subliminal Whispers
Viewing latest articles
Browse all 59 Browse latest View live

Tamron 85-210 f4.5 Telezoom Lens Review

January 12, 2013, 9:32 am
$
0
0
Tamron 85-210mm Vintage Telephoto Zoom Lens



Recently I received a Tamron telephoto zoom lens as a goodwill gift from my mentor. As I didnt have a telephoto for my Nikon D200 I was eager to try it out.

 
 
The lens had ‘FOR NIKON’ written on the mount side. I just mounted the lens and viola. Right after a few pictures I realized this is a damn good lens. Even though it was in storage and hadn’t been used much in the last decade, the optics were clean and mostly dust-free.  The next or so day I shot some pictures in day light around the house and these are the results:


The Tamron 85-210mm Vintage Telephoto Zoom Lens at 85mm focal length

The Tamron 85-210mm Vintage Telephoto Zoom Lens at 210mm focal length

History:
These lenses were made by Tamron in the 80s, luckily in Japan, so the optical quality is very good compared to other lenses. This is a completely manual lens. I had to feed in the focal length and aperture in my D200 in the non CPU lens data to get accurate focus. The shots are a tad better after I did that. It is considerably sharper in daylight but there isn’t much corner to corner sharpness as I have observed. There is no flare at all. Not that I know of. 

 The stylish typographic logo on the lens hood 
These lenses are available on ebay and elsewhere between $35-$100 depending on the condition. This is mostly a mystery lens as presently not much information is available about it or its history. I have also seen it for sale on some websites in many mounts like Canon, Pentax, M42 etc. 

 The Tamron 85-210mm Vintage Telephoto Zooms lens Optics

Technical:
Though the exterior of my version is not in extraordinary condition, the build quality is excellent with polished and coated aluminum. The manual aperture is from f4.5 f22. I am sure the lens optics are properly coated as the color rendition and contrast are amazing. Unfortunately there is no macro mode on this one which is a big letdown, but at the given price you can’t complain. This lens is excellent for candids. This can be almost compared to the legendary Minolta Beercan 70-210 f4 in terms of build, weight and optical quality. Oh yes it weighs a ton.
 Markings on the Tamron 85-210 Telephoto Zoom
Given the price this should be an excellent value lens. If you haven’t got anything better at the budget you can happily buy this lens, but remember this is all manual and there is no macro. So a bit of hardwork is needed. Cheers.

--Viisshnu Vardhan--
↧
Search
↧

Good Lenses for Fashion Photography

March 20, 2013, 12:00 pm
$
0
0


Offline or online there is no definitive answer as to what particular lenses we need to do specialist jobs like fashion photography. Some prefer zooms and some primes. Out of these two, prime lenses seem to have better sharpness, though I haven’t tested or compared the two.


They say it’s the photographer not the lens. Yes its true for some jobs but for specialist jobs like fashion, jewelery etc. gear matters a lot.


Since the last few weeks I have been doing an enormous amount of research online (where else) on lenses suitable for fashion photography. Since I am primarily a Nikon shooter I will list out some Nikon lenses here. The same equivalent focal length and aperture lenses are available in Canon, Sony and Pentax as well. 




Firstly I would like to remind you that these specialist lenses do not come cheap and may cost hundreds of dollars or even more than a thousand dollars. You CANNOT do fashion photography with cheap lenses like the 50mm 1.8D because it will ‘show’ on the picture. The optical properties, optical formula, coating on these lenses is not as good as expensive lenses. Doing fashion photography with a 50mm 1.8D may work sometimes in some lighting conditions but you may not always be lucky. Don’t count on your luck, get the better lens. 


Even though these expensive lenses are a bit of a financial strain you will have invest in them. Over a period of time these lenses will pay for themselves and they are a better investment than camera bodies.




Unfortunately to make matters worse, even Nikon does not mention what kind of lenses it has for fashion, the classification of their lens selection is pretty generic.


As a reference I had a few month old Nikon lens catalogue along with a price list. I painstakingly started researching each lens and what kind of pictures it produced and went through thousands of pictures on both flickr and 500px. My main criteria were color reproduction, sharpness and contrast. NOT price.


The G (Gelded, with no aperture ring) series lenses somehow seem to have a bit low quality and low color reproduction.       


So time and again, during the course of my research I have been coming across a few lenses and they are popping up on various forum discussions. I have mostly listed primes as zooms are considered a bit soft and not so sharp. 



           AF Nikkor 20mm f2.8D– Though not entirely practical for fashion but possibly feasible, the 20mm lens can be used for wide outdoor shots. Color rendition is superb as is edge to edge sharpness. After this one the 24mm f2.8D, 28mm F2.8D and 35mm F2 follow up in focal length but are not good at all, so better skip these three. Price: INR 32,335/-




          AF Nikkor 50mm f1.4D - The catalogue says quality optics, superb resolution, color reproduction and fine detail. It is mostly true. The pictures I have checked out on flickr confirm this. A great lens for portraits. Can be used for body shots in a mid size studio. Price: INR 16,000/-




          AF Micro Nikkor 60mm f2.8D– The catalogue describes this lens as crisp and it surely is. This is also a great portrait lens as it comes to around 90mm on APS-C cameras. Note that this is designated ‘Micro’ that means a real macro lens from Nikon, flowers bees, you know the drill. Price: INR 25,180/-




           Nikkor 85mm f1.4DIF– This is ‘the’ lens to have for fashion photography. Everything else is an excuse. Melissa Rodwell swears by this one. Both the color rendition and sharpness are amazing. Internal Focus. Surprisingly, for some strange reason this lens is not listed in the catalogue I have. Price: INR 67,000/-




           Nikkor 85mm f1.8D– The catalogue says crisp, natural image reproduction with high contrast. Though not that bad a lens to have, definitely not as good as the 85mm 1.4. The only consolation is the sharpness and the price. Price: INR 23,785/-




          AF DC Nikkor 105mm f2D– This is a Defocus Image Control lens which means you can control the soft focus in the foreground and background. The sharpness and bokeh on this one are out of this world. Just get this one. Price: INR 57,215/-




          AF DC Nikkor 135 f2D– This one too is a Defocus lens and has excellent sharpness and color rendition. It costs 10k more for the extra reach in focal length and at f2 is reasonably fast. Price: INR 67,165/-




Though this list not exhaustive, it pretty much covers from wide angle to telephotos. Readers can also suggest other lenses with samples if possible, that will help other people as well. One or two or three lenses from this list will get you started. To save money you can buy lenses during festive offers with special discounts, rent them if you don’t have the money or pool some money together along with some like minded photographer friends to buy it or borrow it from some one who is not using them.


Goodluck and happy clicking J


--Viisshnu--

↧

Going full frame on a budget with film cameras

March 29, 2013, 1:49 pm
$
0
0



I wrote many articles on film photography and cameras before. With a recent increase in the usage of high-end (and also costly) full frame cameras I wondered if guys with small pockets had any choices. Ofcourse they do.


Film photography is cheap, output is qualitative and within the reach of common man. 
Given the prices of high end cameras like Nikon D3x (almost $8000) and Canon 1Ds Mark III (almost $7000), there has never been a good time to choose film photography. Inspite of the shortcomings of film, the advantages far outweigh the heavy price tags of the aforementioned cameras. It is of note that no matter how high-end a DSLR is, it can never replicate the cinematic aura of the film camera.


Even in this day and age of digital saturation there still some purists who shoot on film. A certain percentage of top tier fashion photographers still shoot film. Terry Richardson shoots with a Yashic T4, Miles Aldridge shoots with a Rollieflex, I don’t exactly know which camera but David Bailey too shoots exclusively on film and there are many others like them.


 If your primary professional work demands speed then film photography isn’t for you. Modern journalism is a bit difficult with film, but for magazines like National Geographic where the assignment time is several months, film photography may be most suitable. 




For any up and coming fashion photographer money is the most important criteria. Instead of investing thousands of dollars on camera bodies additionally some more thousands on the subsequent lenses, it is wiser to start off with a good reliable film camera system. The lenses too for film cameras come very cheap. Choose a good system and you are as good as your friend with the 1Ds Mark III. 

 

No matter how expensive a digital camera can never deliver the color rendition of a film camera. A while ago I read somebody’s quote that capturing all the information on the film frame will generate a image file of 1500MB (That’s 1.5GB) and that means shooting with a 500 megapixel camera. Just think about it. 


In this article I have listed what all you need to start off your film photography. 


When buying a film camera see to it that you buy something that has/supports auto focus lenses. This way it will save some valuable time, when it is factor. 
 

You can easily learn film processing and also setting up your own dark room very cheaply. Digitizing film is also not rocket science. You can do it with a good capable computer and scanner system


The whole point of this article is not to tell you to throw away your digital cameras, but only to tell you that there is also an economical alternative to full frame DSLRs.


And remember, without curiosity, inspiration and imagination no matter how high end camera you have, you are just a guy in the middle of the ocean with no sails.    



Happy Clicking.


--Viisshnu Vardhan--






↧

Lowepro Photo Traveler 150 (Mica) Camera Bag Review

April 8, 2013, 12:54 am
$
0
0

The Lowepro Photo Traveler 150 Mica on a chair. 
I put it on a chair so you will have a better idea about its size.

I really never wrote any camera bag reviews but seeing as it is, I thought may be this will be useful for someone.  Firstly to begin with this is a very small bag. Its very inconvenient when you don’t have a dedicated camera bag. 

Before buying this camera bag, I would carry my gear in a normal backpack with my jacket as padding. I used to think I didn’t need a dedicated camera bag. But hell, no. I had to buy one. It does not look professional when you are taking the gear out of your bag like a magician is taking out stuff from his hat, you never know what’s coming next. When you are working with a team, it is very embarrassing.  

Inside the Lowepro Photo Traveler 150 Mica bag. 
The empty space you see is where I kept my Nikon D200

So I started searching camera gear sites for suitable, affordable bags with different features. I wanted to buy something below $60 (Approx.INR 3000). So after searching a lot I finally found the Lowepro 150 Mica (INR 2499) to be a suitable one on flipkart.com. I was impressed with all the things I saw crammed in it. In the pictures and videos the bag looked big enough, so I placed an order. It came almost after 2 days from Bangalore which is fast enough. I opened the box and was shocked.



The bag is just a little bigger than a normal lunch box. I considered sending it back after I tried to fit in my D200 and it was difficult.  I called up the site but they wouldn’t take it back. I also posted an ad online but ZERO responses. Heck, may be its destiny. I decided to keep it anyway. I unpacked all my gear from the sleeve they were in and one by one tried to put in all my gear, which isn’t too much. I realized, to fit in my gear, I had to remove some compartments. I did. Slowly one by one, to my own surprise, I managed to cram every piece of equipment I had into this camera bag, which is a wonder in itself.

This is what all I put in
  1. Nikon D200 with 18-55 lens
  2. Nikon battery charger
  3. Nikon batteries – 2 nos
  4. Sigma 28-105 lens
  5. Sony a200 camera body
  6. Sony 18-70 lens
  7. Sony battery charger
  8. Sony battery   
   In the top panel  
      :
1. Sony HDMI cable
2. A multi card reader
3. Sony power cable       
4. Nikon power cable
5. One CF card
6. paddings that I removed from the bag


There is a provision for a pen/lens pen in the top panel. My only gripe is that there is no more space for a flash gun. I am thinking may be I can cram it in somewhere if I bend it 90 degrees and forego my Sigma 28-105mm lens. To adjust and utilize the space I stored my Sony a200 and the Sony kit lens 18-70 separately.

The quality of the bag is very good. It’s well stitched, well zippered, well planned. Only the size is a deal breaker. There are so many other bags so much bigger and at half the price. I feel $50 for a bag of this size is way too much money. The only consolation is the quality. 

This bag is strictly for amateurs who have minimal equipment. On a weekend holiday if you are going somewhere for a photo-walk or something then this bag is for you. Luckily, in there, somewhere, you can also fit in a couple of sandwiches for lunch.  


Bon Appetit !

                                                             

↧

Studio Lighting Setup For Photographer On A Budget

April 16, 2013, 8:12 am
$
0
0


A translucent shoot through umbrella 

Firstly, I would like to begin by saying that all or atleast most of the photography lighting equipment and gear out there is very expensive. I cannot emphasize enough on photography and lighting as they are two sides of the same coin.


After checking out the prices ofphotography light kits online, I decided to put together my own DIY style photography lighting setup. Its been a long time now since I have been thinking about it and I wanted to setup my own cheap, unique and effective lighting system under a budget. So I started asking, looking around and found many inexpensive solutions.  


In Hyderabad, where I live, like everywhere else, photo goods are expensive as hell. I originally wanted to put together a strobe/flash system but after much calculations realized it will cost me nearly INR 30,000 (approx. $550) for all the lighting and related accessories. 30,000 for me is not a small amount. So I started considering other options i.e cheap manual/semi automatic flashes instead of strobes. Remember if you are buying strobes you will also have to buy sturdier stands to support their weight. With flashes you don’t have that problem. 

Btw this article is NOT about Strobes Vs Flashes, but Expensive Vs Inexpensive lighting.
I feel using a flash system instead of the strobes is not only economical but it is also very portable. Can you put strobe lights in your cargo pants? I don’t think so haha. 


I did look for information on many online forums before preparing this lighting setup. We shall compare flash system with the strobe system in relation to their cost and related accessories.


A pair of elinchrome strobes on stands with soft boxes

Here is a list for the costly strobe system:


       1.Two Prolinchrome strobes – INR 18,000

       2.Two stands – INR 3,000

       3.Two reflective or shoot through umbrellas – INR 300

       4.Two simpex triggers – 1,200

       5.Umbrella mounts for stand – INR 700

       6.Cables/connectors – INR 3,000


This is just a basic list. With some more accessories the total cost of the setup will come to nearly INR 30,000.


Lets see how we fare with the flash setup we have devised.

Note: The all manual Yongnou flashes have no TTL or iTTL but you can use them to trigger other flashes/lights/strobes in Pilot/Commander/Master mode. All you need is appropriate camera settings. I am mentioning Yongnou because they have good reviews online. Some of their latest models do support TTL. You can add your own favorite brand in the list. Btw the Yongnuo YN560-II at just $77 is a great flash gun.



Yongnou 560EX flashgun (pic stolen from Yongnou site)

Some photographers swear by proprietary flash guns from Canon and Nikon. Its their opinion. The supposed quality itself does not justify the high price of these flashes that cost more than two strobes. Both Canon flash and Nikon flash are extremely expensive. Nikon’s Speedlight SB-910 and Canon’s 600 EX-RT Flash guns both cost INR 33,000+. Yes, a single flash gun from Canon or Nikon costs almost as much as 4 strobes. Yeah ! its crazy expensive and also ridiculous. But if you are really crazy about proprietary flashes then you can buy them on the used market for much less. 



Remember there many even thousands of inexpensive flash gun brands like Yongnou, Polaroid, Vivitar, Metz, Nissin and many many unknown brands. The mechanics inside any flash is almost same, so there are very much repairable and salvageable if they give trouble or anything.     


Sigma flash

With this list we are trying to go as low as possible money wise. If you have some more bucks you can choose accessories with more/better specs.


        1.Two Yongnuo manual flashes - INR 4,000

        2.Two Yongnow triggers – INR 2500

        3.Two reflective or shoot through umbrellas – INR 300

        4.Two light stands – INR 1400

        5.Umbrella mounts for light stand – INR 700

       The costing of this list is coming to a grand total of INR 8,900.

       So with this photography lighting setup you are saving INR 21,100 (approx $383). Yes a huge amount indeed. This setup is extremely useful for a small studio that is primarily into portrait photography.

Light stands

You can buy pro gear when you start making money off of your assignments, until then you have to make do with what you have and get creative.

When you are working with manual/inexpensive flashes like Yongnou or Vivitar etc you have to understand their limitations and have to turn these limitations into your advantages. On that note I would like to add that there is no shame in being poor and having no money for expensive gear. It’s really the disadvantages that teach you great lessons. In life you have two options, either you can drown your problems with a truck load of money or learn to work with your limitations and turn them into learning opportunities, creating, developing ingenious ideas and having lot of fun along your journey as a photographer.

Godspeed.....













↧
↧

Tripod DIY - Repairing or Making Your Own Quick Release

April 21, 2013, 10:49 am
$
0
0
The Vivitar VPT-3600 Tripod

When I bought my Sony a200 DSLR the shop owner promised to give me a free tripod and I got it after a few days. The catch? It had no quick release plate or the fastening latch. I kept it unused for a long time. Recently I figured I could use it as a light stand and also put an umbrella adapter for full fledged use in the studio.

This model is made by Vivitar and is called the VPT-3600. It is retailing for INR 2,250 on ebay brand new. This model is very light and can be used as a travel tripod.  

After some more time I realized I can make the quick release myself. So I studied a lot of things online but nothing seemed to help. Unfortunately tripods come in variety of sizes and configurations. So do the quick releases as there is no universal standard in their size and function.

Slot for the Tripod quick release plate

I briefly even considered making the quick release by making a wooden cast and melting some plastic but realized that would be too much of a hassle and I didn’t have the tools or the expertise.
I figured the tripod is salvageable after all.

The Vivitar logo and mostly faded model name

I drew up the schematics and dimensions of the top plate.
I still haven’t made it, but sharing the info. Will soon put up the pictures or may be a video lets see.

What I am using is:
  1. 3 screws to fix the wood plate
  2. Some metal and rubber washers
  3. A ¾ inch hard aluminum (ideally somethign hard like a metal)top plate that will sit on top of the wooden plate
  4. A ¾ inch piece of wood with a thickness of 1 ¼ inch
  5. A ¼ inch bolt that will into the bottom of the camera.     
If you have a carpenter’s workshop in your area you can get it done or volunteer to do it yourself, but be careful while working the vice, saws and drilling machine.

to be continued....

↧

Nikkor 18-70 ED DX lens review

July 1, 2013, 6:53 am
$
0
0


I recently had the good fortune of buying a ‘as good as new’ Nikkor 18-70 from a local seller at a reasonably low price. I was really tired of the ‘amateur’ 18-55 VR. Though its not a bad lens and produced some not so bad results, I was longing for a professional (atleast looking) lens for my D200.




I read a lot of reviews for this lens before buying it and most of them were positive. Some called it Nikon’s mistake. It’s selling around $300 online.




My gripe with the 18-55 was that it had no ED. Inspite of the fact that how much difference it made to the final image, having ED etched on the lens barrel makes it look better. It also came with a hood. I shot both casually and professionally with this lens and it has delivered decent results.




Build quality is much much better than the 18-55 VR. The front element diameter is 67mm. Its 3.5 at wide end and 4.5 at the tele end. It weighs substantially more than the 18-55.  

I also read that this lens was supplied with the D70 as a kit lens a while back. As far as I know the lens is not in production anymore.



I used this lens exclusively for a product/merchandise shoot for a Mumbai based client a few weeks back.  

Here are some pics from the lens. All shot with the D200.








↧

Using cheap flashes for professional photography

October 11, 2013, 5:02 am
$
0
0
I have always loved flashes more so than any other accessory in my camera bag. Flash changed my photography thoroughly and for the better.


The following are the pictures I shot with a single Canon 430 EX flash. Its, TTL, very capable and very consistent. This flash is available for $321 new and for $169 used on Amazon. Ofcourse you can get away with using any other cheap flash and still achieve the same result.    


For more pictures please go to my page on facebook 'StudioVii" and please like the page, if its not too much to ask. Thank you :)

How I shot these?
The camera I had on me was a Nikon D200, with the 430 EX flash (NOT Canon 430 EX II) bounced to the ceiling  at 24mm, effectively making it a huge softbox/lightsource. White balance cloudy. f around 4 or 5 I think. Btw these pictures haven't been edited in anyway except cropping a bit.  I did take an elinchrome D-lite II it strobe head with me but didnt feel the need to use it as the pictures with flash were already good enough. 

Ok in the middle of things, I apologize to my dear readers if they feel my posts are a little autobiographical, that comes from my past career as a copywriter. I personally think a little bit of background story would make anything worthwhile to read J so that’s that.

A few days back I visited my local camera market (by local I mean its approx 30km from where I live) to buy a sensor cleaning kit. While I was there I asked the shop assistants to show me some cheap flashes. They showed me couple of Vivitar flashes both under $15. Yes under fifteen dollars. Bingo !!!! That’s it I thought, what if I coupled with them with some cheap flash triggers and made my own lighting system? Viola !!! that would be amazing. Since they cost under $15 I wouldn’t even have to worry if they break. The caveat? They are completely manual flashes, no TTL.  That is fine by me.




Vivitar in their hey day made excellent affordable flashes, they do now as well. Now the brand is owned by a company called Sakar International. Vivitar brand was owned by many companies in the past. Their 285HV is now a legend. It was prized by both professionals and amateurs It is still manufactured in this day and age. It’s available for approx $82 on Amazon, but comes even cheaper if bought used or on fleabay.


Not just Vivitar there are many other cheap no name flashes available for $15-$100 in the market today. Whatever you buy make sure it is reliable.  Personally I feel hundreds of $$$ for a flash is a ridiculous idea, but if you are on the OEM branded flashes side, then you can still buy the Nikon SB range and Canon speedlite flashes in the used market for much much less.



Time to talk about the Yongnuo flashes. How can one post an article about cheap flashes without talking about Yongnuo? haha. It’s a Chinese company and has been making lot of things apart from flashes. Their range of flashes are a hit in the amateur market. Their recent offerings are the cheapest TTL flashes and are available through their online store.  



So are there any downsides to using cheap flashes?, yes sure, but the positives far outweigh the negatives. Here I list some concerns.

  •     Most of these cheap flashes do not have TTL . a TTL flash will save you time, shutters and guesswork. Get a cheap flash that has TTL instead of an all manual flash, your problems are solved.
  •     Some of the older flashes due to their high voltage output may short circuit the internal mechanics of your DSLR. So do your research when using an older flash.
  •     Reliability is ofcourse an issue. These cheap $15 flashes may suddenly stop working in the middle of a shoot, so having one or two of these as a back-up is always a good idea.
So the big question – “Can you use cheap flashes for professional photography? Absolutely Yes. The difference in light between a $15 flash and a $500 flash is almost zero. Yes you can go ahead and buy that $15 flash. Cheers and happy clicking.

      --Viisshnu--


↧
Search

Digiflip CB001 Bag Review

March 28, 2014, 11:24 pm
$
0
0


 Digiflip CB001 camera bag

This is the second camera bag I bought from flipkart, the first one being the Lowepro 150 Mica. When I first wanted to buy a DSLR bag, this was the one I wanted, but chose instead the Lowepro, thinking it would be big, but unfortunately no. Still the Lowepro, though small, can carry two camera bodies with lenses and accessories, if you are intelligent enough to fit them in. The quality of the Lowepro is top notch to say the least compared to the Digiflip CB001. 

here is the package it arrived in


Before saying anything about this bag, I would like to add that they are many off brand bags available in the market in the Rs.1000 – Rs.2000 category which are much better made than the Digiflip CB001. In my local camera market I happened to come across an off brand bag for Rs.1500 that was big enough and sturdy enough to handle two pro bodies, many lenses and accessories. 


I understand this is flipkart’s own brand and they may have added a pocket or two from the previous versions. In regard to the Lowepro bag I ordered earlier, I was relieved to find that this bag is big enough to accommodate all my gear. The quality is good compared to the price @ Rs.1050/- ($16).


Digiflip logo on the top compartment 
 
The bag has two compartments, top and bottom. The bottom part holds the camera bodies and lenses whereas the top part is zippered where you can put in your flashes, filters, cards, etc. All in all, this bag is a great value for money. The pics are from when it arrived in November 2013.

 Nicely laid out compartments
inside the Digiflip CB001 camera bag


What all I put in the bag??

Bottom Compartment

  1. Nikon D200 Body
  2. Nikkor 18-70 lens with hood
  3. Nikkor 50mm lens
  4. Sigma 28-105 Lens
  5. Sony a200 Body
  6. Sony 18-70 lens
  7. Power cables and data cable in the front pocket
  8. Canon 430 EX flash
  9. Nikon Battery Charger
  10. Sony Battery charger.
  11. AA battery charger

Top Compartment 
 
  1. 8 AA batteries in the top most pocket along with Sony and Nikon camera batteries
  2. Diffusion material in the top compartment.
  3. Blower
  4. Sensor cleaning kit
  5. Collapsible hoods
  6. Marker
  7. Business Cards
  8. Triggers
  9. Cleaning cloth

I can still make some space to fit in more things...I am a space warrior haha.

Update: After using the bag for 4-5 months, now I realize, the padding material used for panels inside the bag is not of the highest quality and might come off soon. 

Note: all pictures shot with Nikon D200 with on-camera flash.



--Viisshnu--
↧
↧

Using inexpensive plastic boxes for photography accesories

April 29, 2014, 4:01 pm
$
0
0


I looked up for some CF card holders online and was surprised to find that they cost a minimum of Rs 699 (a little over $10 US) so went out hunting at local utilities stores and found these inexpensive plastic boxes and bought a bunch of them. The reason I decided to buy them is to make sure the contacts on my CF cards and batteries do not scratch. All the six boxes cost me just Rs 65, which is $1 (yeah one dollar). These boxes were made by some Indian company called Aristo plast and some other nameless company. I am sure you can find similar boxes at your local utilities store. Happy hunting.







↧

what to look for in a pro camera body

May 5, 2014, 11:00 pm
$
0
0

So you have quit your day job and jumped headlong into photography? Congratulations. Do you already own a camera? An entry level camera? Unfortunately your entry level camera wouldn't cut it for the rigors of professionally demanding scenarios. You need a pro body or atleast a semi pro body that inspires respect and as a bonus also produces great pictures. I personally own a Nikon D200. It has its quirks but most importantly it has all the pro features.

Now lets look at the features a pro body needs to have:




Top LCD Panel : This is an extremely important feature which saves time in composition
and also looks great on camera.




Magnesium Alloy Body: The camera has to withstand the rigours of the demanding shooting situations and also everyday use. It should be strong enough to withstand a fall and still work fine. So this feature is mandatory.



Weather-sealing: If you are a full-time commercial photographer like me, you would be taking your camera into raining jungles, storms, tornadoes and the like. It is important that your camera be water/humidity/heat resistant.


Built in Auto-focus Motor: From time to time you might want or need to use lenses that
don't have a built in auto-focus motors, so having it in camera would eliminate all problems.
Some cameras in Nikon like the D40, D40X, D60, D3000, D3100, D3200, D3300, D5000, D5100, D5200, D5300 dont have a built in autofocus motors. The autofocus motors in entry level camers are not that strong. They are built tough and powerful in pro bodies.




CF Card Slot: Pictures from a CF card are better than SD cards. Make sure you buy a camera with a CF card slot. These days they say the quality between an SD image and CF image is negligible. I personally don't know about that. I don't have any camera with a SD or SDHC. So I cant tell. Both my Sony a200 and Nikon D200 are CF cameras and the pictures from them are mind blowing. 

Addordable/Mid-range pro cameras that have the above features:

  1. Canon 40D
  2. Canon 50D
  3. Nikon D200
  4. Nikon D300/300s
  5. Canon 7D
  6. Sony a77

↧

Regarding your Photography Gear: Upgrading Vs Downgrading

May 7, 2014, 11:20 pm
$
0
0



 Canon 40D and Canon EOS 1D Mark IIN
A lot of you are already aware what upgrading is, then what exactly is downgrading,
it is exactly what you think it is. There are always latest and greatest cameras coming to the market, but that doesn't mean you should buy em all. The key is to buy the best camera that's suits your requirement and budget and stick with it. Unless you got tons of cash to splurge on constantly upgrading your kit, it is advisable to stick with what you have already.


Nikon D2X

The 'not so latest' cameras are a good choice as most of them are available for peanuts. Cameras like the Canon 40D, 50D are now available cheaply on fleabay. So are the Nikon DX cameras of yesteryears like the D40, D60, D70, D80. Even great cameras like the D2Hs and D2Xs are in the viscinity of $250-500 which is great news. These cameras, during the time of their debut cost thousands of dollars. Even today, they are great cameras by any means. 


Nikon D2H

Downgrading your kit doesn't mean buying bad cameras or buying old, battered pieces. Buy the cameras in great condition that you can afford. For studio use cameras like the Nikon D100 or D1h or a D2x or D2xs offer an affordable option. They are great value for the money and are available for peanuts. Remeber these cameras were highly advanced when they were launched. So its not only just a matter of perception. 

Nikon D80

Photography need not be a costly affair. There is no point in buying a $300 hammer if you can get the same job done with a $30 hammer equally well.

Happy Clicking !   



↧

Vivitar 3200A Auto-thyristor flash review 2014

May 9, 2014, 11:32 pm
$
0
0
Vivitar 3200A Auto-thyristor electronic flash, seen here with other knick knacks

Some months ago I visited camera shops in my city and came across a Vivitar 3200 flash, when the sales guy told me that its costs less than Rs.1000/- (Approx $15) I immediately added this to my buy list. Luckily enough before buying the flash a photographer acquaintance of mine lent this flash to me for a family event. I realized this cheap looking, old school flash is extremely potent. Though the build quality, buttons, body material, design are below par, but at $15 who gives a damn.   

This is a completely manual flash and has no TTL, though with one great wonderful feature, a light measuring sensor that determines the output. Great right. I tested this feature at home and its not a scam. This little feature works more or less like TTL. It may or may not be as accurate but it sure is a handy feature. Its a lot better than spending hundreds of dollars on a TTL flash.

Before this flash I had been using the Canon 430 EX, which I borrowed from an acquaintance. It is a great flash and all, but costs as much as two strobe heads, which is a rip off. The same cost as two full power strobe heads?? you gotta be kidding me.The bad points about this flash are its plastic foot and a lack of a dedicated PC sync port.  Too bad. Incidentally my Rs.1000/- Vivitar flash has a PC sync port, now that is just sweet. I tested the PC sync port of the Vivitar on my Nikon D200 and the flash has proved to be, for lack of better words, extremely consistent. 

My two Interfit full-power 23 strobes, bought a few days ago cost me Rs 17,000/- (Approx $269) and the price included two reflectors, two stands and two softboxes. A single Nikon SB-910 costs Rs.31,000/- in India (almost $500). Imagine $269 Vs $500, which is a good deal ??. A small strobe like the Simpex 300D (In India, its something like a small einstien or alien bee) costs just Rs.2700/- ($42) and it is far more powerful and less complicated than a Nikon SB-910 flash. Again $42 Vs $500, which do you think is a good  deal ?? Just because its OEM doesnt mean you have to shell out hundreds of $$$ just for the name. You should use OEM equipment where it matters, NOT where it doesnt. My personal formula is that, the flash shouldn't cost more than half of the cost of a single strobe head. If it does, I might ass well buy the strobe itself.

 Vivitar 3200A flash mounted on a flash bracket, connected to my Nikon D200 via a pc sync cord. You can also see a strobe trigger on the hot shoe. Off the context, the Nikon D200 has such a great form factor.


Battery efficiency

Since this is not an advanced flash, the sales man suggested I buy 1000 mAh batteries instead of 2500 mAh NiMh. I went ahead and bought two sets of 1000 mAh simpex brand batteries, which are working great. 2500 mAh would have been an overkill on this flash or worse yet can fry the flash. Yesterday I tested these batteries for a wedding related event and after more than 200 pops, there was still a lot of juice left in it. I can tell these batteries are perfect for this flash. I bought two sets of this 4 pack and I am hoping they should last me a whole wedding.

Recycle

The recycling time is not super fast, which is fine as I am not shooting thousand bursts a second. Depending on the flash output, the recycle time is anywere between 1 and 4 seconds, which is great.

Design
The design of the flash is pretty basic and has old school zen feel to it. The 80s look is a winner for me as I have a taste for things bygone. Though the build material is cheap, this flash is worth every paisa. The inclusion of a light measuring sensor which adjusts output accordingly is a huge deal maker for me. This flash is not built too strong and the buttons are a bit loose, so always handle the flash with care. Rough use is not recommended. It has tilt and swivel, but be careful while bending and turning. Too much force can break the flash. Irrespective of the caveats this still is a great flash and I recommend it for anyone on a budget or enthusiastic about amateur strobist work. I might additionally buy one or two of these great flashes soon.

Happy clicking.

--Viisshnu--      

↧
↧

Nikon D200 review 2014 - Some New Thoughts

July 13, 2014, 12:52 pm
$
0
0






 Nikon D200 DSLR with 50mm 1.8D lens

This is going to be a long read, so save this on your phone or laptop and get to home. I don’t suggest you read this at your office or on your phone.  Go home, make yourself a nice cappuccino or a mocktail, before you sit down to read it. Nothing like sipping some nice hot or cold drink to read a photography article about the camera you like. Right ? 


Before I begin let me tell you I am the kind of photographer who does not believe expensive gear equals good photography. I have shot some amazing pictures with kit lenses and the cheapy 50 1.8 lenses. If you don’t know how to use a camera even an expensive camera can’t save your day. Also theres a danger of thefts, wear and tear etc that will hurt you both financially and emotionally. 

I have seen awesome commercial photography done with entry level cameras and I firmly believe there is no point in buying expensive cameras or lenses until and unless you absolutely need them or your photography business is running good enough to buy them.  A camera shouldn’t cost as much as a car or a house, its ridiculous.  I have done some awesome pictures in my commercial photography assignments with a Nikon D200 and a Sony alpha 200, yeah Sony alpha 200. I am not ashamed to shoot with entry level cameras for my commercial assignments. Yes the SONY A200 is my backup to the D200, yeah I don’t have a Nikon body as a backup. Sue me. haha...


Clients pay you for the images you deliver. NOT for the cameras you have.

Now lets get into the story at hand. 




So, I recently finished shooting for a local custom motorcycle company and used the Nikon D200 extensively for this shoot. (no, not canon mark III or even a 7D) I had to use the D200 as I had no other choice.  Earlier in the day, I shot their promo video on a mark III with a carl zeiss lens (85mm 1.4 to be exact). Its all great and everything but had to send it off as the rental agreement was only for certain hours. 


Right from the first image I shot the clients who were present at the shoot in the workshop, literally gasped with awe at the quality of the images. Absolutely clean RAW files. They might have done the same if I had shot with a Nikon D800 or a 1Dx or a Mark III, as the lighting scheme I planned proved to be very effective, but none the less, its impossible to write off D200’s contribution to the whole exercise. 



 By the way, this was a trial shot done to check the lighting. The very first picture in the series.

A few days ago after the shoot I went to the editing suite to get the promo video of the aforementioned clients edited and I insisted they see the quality of the images on a mac. They did. Their mind was blown and they acknowledged my hardwork and the quality (worked non-stop for 22 hrs for both promo video and photoshoot, no kidding).

Before this whole episode, I looked some of my pics on my home pc and was appalled, but realized this is not how these pictures meant to be seen. I was right the mac showed the true color and rendition of these images. 



People shooting commercially have to know each camera has its own flavor, no camera is alike, even from the same manufacturer. The quality of a Nikon D3 is different than a Nikon D700, even though both share the same sensor. The image processing, rendering is all different in these cameras. The sensor in the Nikon D80, D200, and D60 are the same, they may superficially look the same but when you pixel peep, you will notice the differences. 


My contention is that if you can extract the same quality images from a D200 as a Mark III, I will say there is no point in getting a Mark III. I am not trying to downplay the Mark III, it is an excellent camera by any means. I am just saying, the Mark III does not fit everyone’s budget. Sure you can rent them for shoots. 

 





What is the D200 good at ??


Given its accurate color rendition D200 can be used to shoot clothes and anything related to clothes/clothing catalogues. It can also be used to shoot portraits as the skin tones from the camera are absolutely amazing, this is something lacking in modern DSLRs from Nikon sadly. The skin tones in the D7000 are a mix of some strange orangy pinkish hue. Even the D300/300s fails to deliver skin tones properly. I have seen a lot of photographers complain about this issue online about the D300.


 

Coming back to the D200, when I was looking at the pictures, I realized apart from the few minor things the image quality between the D200 and a Mark III is very marginal. Good lighting is the key. Any camera will perform well in good lighting conditions.  NO, I am not talking rubbish. I have compared both images from the D200 and Mark III on a mac screen with retina display. So I know. If at all you feel, the D200’s images are not up ‘there’, you can always tweak them in photoshop.


That beats having a $3000 camera, doesn’t it ?





If you plan your lighting properly, optimize the settings and shoot with a proper technique I bet my bottom dollar, you will get images that are on par with the expensive cameras. 



The whole point of this article is: Hold on to your D200 a little longer, and shoot with it more to bring out its best.



I might extend this article indefinitely, so keep checking for updates.



Happy clicking…

--Viisshnu--
↧

Nikon D200 Review - Professional camera for the rest of us

August 27, 2012, 8:11 am
$
0
0

Nikon D200 front

A while ago when I was reading on what cameras National Geographic photographers were using, I came across a variety of things online. I happened to stumble upon one interview of Steve Mc Curry (the guy famous for photographing that afghan girl). In the interview Mr. Curry mentioned that he was using a Nikon D2x. Nikon D2x is the Holy Grail of Nikon cameras, the absolute high end. It has a CMOS sensor made by Sony and is used by the top of the crop photogs worldwide. Being a budget shooter I was, I knew I can never have it.
Nikon D200 back

Enter the Dragon. Until recently I never really knew or understood what a great camera the Nikon D200 is. Some professional I know has one and that’s how I came to experience what this camera is all about. I did accompany him on weddings and such and was blown away at the quality output it produced. In many ways the D200 is a budget shooter’s D2x, sharing many of its features. Ironically enough it’s far ahead of the D100, which is basically a very primitive camera comparatively. Both the D100 and D200 have a CCD sensor whereas the D300 and D300s both have CMOS.


Under normal day light conditions the D200 has produced very rich colors and vibrant tones, although a bit muted which seems to somehow increase the appeal of pictures. As for the wedding pictures under strobe lights, the D200 is capable of extraordinary output. Skin tones are out of this world. Its not usual that I am impressed by every camera out there. I don’t even check pictures on a computer to judge a camera. I shoot, switch the LCD, zoom in and I know everything I have to know.  


Speaking of skin tones, my nimble, nifty workhorse the Sony a200 also produces divine skin tones, that too just with the built in flash and faint halogen lights. Incidentally both the Nikon D200 and my Sony a200 don’t just share their digits but they also share the same rating (41 points) on Snapsort, beyond the obvious, which is a bit baffling as to why and how. Though the a200 lacks many of the professional features of the D200 (mainly weather sealing and magnesium alloy body) it has never failed me (excusing a recent flash failure due to a bit rough use).

Coming back to the D200, the camera can last a decade or two depending on the usage. It is hefty and feels very professional. It stores images on a CF card which means higher quality. Even today, on Amazon, some pieces cost more than $1000. I am lucky as I have an excellent piece ready for me to buy from a well respected senior photographer in my city. The body along with an additional battery is costing me INR 25,000 or approximately $454 which is not  bad deal as some are selling the same anywhere from $750 to $1350.  Like I said before, the d200 is an excellent if not a better alternative to the D2x and now is the best time to get it.


↧
Search

The Nikon D200 review

September 23, 2012, 8:47 am
$
0
0
Updated - 26JUL2014


Nikon D200 with 28-105mm AF Sigma on the box
Thoughts
 
I got one for myself just a week ago. In the professional circles I have been in, the D200 is a much sought after camera. The only minus that it seems to have is the battery economy. A spare battery can solve that problem. 

Not surprisingly a lot of professionals I know swear by it and for good reasons. The camera was launched in November 2005 and was succeeded by the D300 in august 2007. However, in the mid range Nikon line this was the last camera with a CCD sensor after the D100. The D300 and D300s are both CMOS sensor cameras. The CCD sensor in the D200 was made by Sony. 
  Nikon D200 right side
 

I have also seen photographers from rural and sub rural towns in this part of the world use the D200 for weddings and other sundry. They are available used from anywhere between INR 255,000 to INR 50,000 depending on the condition and accessories its coming with. 

Even from the time when I didn’t know anything about cameras, I had always wanted a D100 or a D200. It was based mostly on what I read and heard. I nearly bought a D100 some months back, but had to drop out because of the price and besides, the camera was too old.   

Nikon D200 with the Nikkor 18-55mm f3.5-5.6G VR lens

I always thought the camera is not as important as the photographer. May be its true in some cases but in some cases its not. You need a good camera to make a good picture. I used to think amateur/entry level cameras can be used for professional purposes. May be, but the professional quality is something else. When you have a great camera, your expression becomes that much easier. 
  
The Camera

        Studio
Shot with the D200 and Nikkor 18-55mm f3.5-5.6G ED II lens

Now that I have seen the D200’s output, I can easily differentiate amateur quality. The D200 produces rich tones and vibrant hues. Though I mostly shot with the Sigma 28-105 that I had, it was enough to discern the output quality. 

Though used, my camera still is in a relatively pristine condition. Good thing, the seller I bought from also gave me the original box (in a very good condition) along with the manual and CDs (Never opened from their covers). Getting a camera in pristine conditon, new box, unopened CDS, now thats a bit rare. Most sellers  

I was told the camera has done a little over 15k clicks.  I didnt check the shutter count when I first bought it, the seller could have lied, I am speculating it might have been around 20-25k.  

Battery

The only flaw the camera has is its low battery economy. Comparatively, with my Sony a200, I can shoot a whole wedding without even checking the battery status. The D200’s battery is the same one as in the D80. You can even swap the D80’s battery door in case you lose the one on your D200. Also having the D80 as a backup is not bad idea as both use the same batteries. Having an extra battery or two is advisable.  Both the D200 and D80 have the same sensors. The D80 has Active D-lighting, the D200 does not, thats the only difference. 

Handling

The D200 is heavy and feels very solid. The contours give a very professional feel. I can’t understand why some people complain about weight. I wonder, are people too weak to even lift three or four pounds? No? then that’s a pity. The buttons are all placed well and good. They contribute heavily to the overall aesthetic of the camera. The menus are easy to navigate. With the selectable autofocus points, shooting with the D200 is pure happiness.

What I shot with?

I had an old Nikon mount Sigma 28-105 AF lens and the camera has fared excellently with it. Performance seems on par. Justyesterday I bought a 18-55 VR for the D200 and here is a review of the lens. 

Ohh btw here is the latest review I wrote for the D200 after almost two years. Here you go....


--Viisshnu Vardhan--


↧

Sigma Autofocus 28-105 Lens Review

October 26, 2012, 8:32 am
$
0
0
-->



This is probably the most prized lens I currently have with me. It works great on my Nikon D200, though not without some glitches, it has its own quality. Somebody gave it to me out of goodwill last year. I only bought a Nikkor 18-55 VR lens because group shots are impossible at 28mm. Also I had to have a back-up lens. So the set up I have is really foolproof. From 55 to 105 I am covered with the Sigma for portraits and close-up work.

When I tried it with the Nikon D200 for the first time, I was astounded by the results. The pictures had an even, bright tone all over. It is not too contrasty though. Luckily for me this is an old Sigma and made probably more than a decade ago. Also it is made in Japan, NOT China. I hear a lot of Sigma lenses these days are coming from Chinaand I really don’t have a clue as to how the quality of Chinaand Japanmade lenses compare or whether its identical. I personally feel made in Japanones are better.

So coming back to the lens, a lot of people told me third party lenses have compatibility issues with proprietary cameras. True indeed. My Sigma 28-105 only works at .22 aperture. Oh yes btw there is a manual aperture ring which you can set, but the D200’s top LCD panel shows an error reading ‘rEE’ (that’s ‘r’ and 33 in reverse) if I use any other manual aperture except .22. At this point I really don’t know what it means, so I am just shooting at 22 aperture and the pictures are just fine.

Unfortunately, yesterday when I was sorting things from my bag the lens fell down from a small height. It fell face down with the lens hood. The old lens hood (Indian made ‘Shine’ 72 dia) broke immediately and I had rush to the nearest camera store to unscrew the broken ring that was still attached to the lens. Fortunately there is no damage to the lens and its working fine.  The lens is all plastic but is well made and is comparable to the build quality of Nikkor lenses. 




↧
↧

The Lone Wolf Scenario

December 2, 2012, 7:00 am
$
0
0
Sony a200 DSLR

In the professional photography arena, being special and unique in the equipment you use and to be known that way comes at a cost. Ever since I wanted to buy a DSLR I have always craved somehow for ‘off’ brands like Panasonic, Fuji, Sony instead of the mainstream Canon and Nikon. At that time my amateur mind could not deduce the risks and retributions that were going to come my way if I chose an ‘off’ brand.  I wanted to be seen as and remain special among my peers and have an air of exclusivity around me.  I would look down upon anyone with a Canon and Nikon. For me they were lesser mortals. At that time I didn't know soon I was going to be rewarded for that foolishness and a lot of things were in store for me.

When I went up to the camera store to check some cameras offered for sale, I was lucky to find the almost brand new Sony a200. So I chose it instead of the beaten down, overused Nikon D50 and D40x. See, by itself the Sony a200 is not a bad camera. It belongs along with the D40, D50 and D60 with more or less similar specs, size and build quality.  Before going to the store I did do my research and check pictures online. I was more than satisfied. Additionally I also asked around if it was a good buy inspite of the fact that I was going to buy it anyway. People advised me against it. Lot of reasons - new system, costly and a few number of lenses, untried, but I went ahead and bought it anyway.


Fujifilm S5 Pro


Initially everything was smooth sailing, picture quality was amazing, semi automatic modes were phenomenal. For general purposes it was a great camera. Few days later when I started to use the camera for weddings and other shoots things started to unravel one by one. 


At a wedding where I was called as a backup photographer I had great difficulty to achieve synchronization with my fellow photographer. All I had was the 18-70 kit lens and 70 mm was as far as I could get. I couldn’t use his lenses, I couldn’t use his camera triggers or flashes, strobe sync was possible only if the built in flash fired and it is dangerously delicate, prone to malfunction and crash even with a mild overuse (as of oct 2013 it isnt working anymore, but I didnt need it anyaway, I am now using the Sony FA-HS1AM adapter for the hot shoe to mount third party triggers and flashes). I was now facing the ‘Lone Wolf Scenario’.      


It is not only important to make a great camera, it is essential to understand things from the photographer’s perspective. Some camera companies rarely do that. Money is the major motivation.  You make profit, fine, but give me something to feel happy about.

When Sony entered the DSLR arena with Minolta and Zeiss’s muscles, it was indeed a new leaf for photographers and industry, but how far will you get by being extremely proprietary? 


Leica M9 Black

Thankfully just recently Sony introduced its hot shoe adapter which can be used for third party flashes, triggers etc. It debuted in the market at INR 7999, yes you read that right Rs.7999. When I recently checked the latest Sony catalogue the price listed was INR 1999, INR 6000 less. Its very uncharacteristic of Sony to reduce the prices so drastically but sure is a welcome change. 

 Pentax K-30


Amateur DSLR market is probably the most crowded presently with sellers offering cutting edge cameras that are ready to compete with even pro cameras. These amateur cameras serve their purposes in the amateur market. When it’s a DSLR like a Sony a200, it is possible that professionals will use it as a backup or main camera and it becomes an imperative task for the manufacturers to address compatibility factors and bring into the market a camera that is versatile as well as seamless for professional use. If that does not happen photographers will continue to face the ‘Lone Wolf Scenario’ and might develop disdain and disenchantment for particular brands. I hope somebody at Sony is reading this. 


-Viisshnu Vardhan-





↧

Motorcycle Porn: Shooting Jawa/Yezdi Motorcycles with the Nikon D200 and Nikkor 80-200 f2.8

July 14, 2015, 8:22 am
$
0
0

 My kid brother's 1986 Yezdi 250 CL II Motorcycle

On the evening of 11th July my brother told me about a gathering of Jawa/Yezdi motorcycle owners at Deccan Club, Hyderabad. Being a motorcycle guy myself I was excited and in the early hours of 12th July we started for the venue on our 1986 Yezdi 250 CL II motorcycle. We were the first to arrive at the venue and utilized the opportunity to shoot pictures of our motorcycle in the beautiful morning sunlight. After a little while motorcyclists started to arrive one by one and before time the venue was filled up with motorcycles. It was surprising to see that most of the chaps that came were in their twenties and early thirties. After a little introduction with the organizers, and seeing my brother networking with other bikers, I decided to get to work. I shot whatever caught my fancy. I had brought my trusty Nikon D200 with the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 attached. I also had the 18-70 but it was mostly in the bag except for a few wide shots. All images shot with Nikon D200 and Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 at f4, auto white balance, matrix metering, ISO 100.

 There is a huge cult around the Jawa/Yezdi motorcycles inIndia. It is the second biggest cult after the Royal Enfield cult. In the sixties the immigrant yezidi jew merchants of India started importing Jawa motorcycles from the erstwhile Czech republic. After a while due to some diplomatic red tape they couldn’t import these bikes into India. So they started to build their own, under the license of Czech Jawa. These new bikes made india were named ‘Yezdi’ as in ‘Yezidi jewish’. (On another note these are the same ethnic group of Yezidi jews that are being persecuted now in Syria by the terrorist group ISIS). In essence the Jawa and Yezdi are the same bike except a few cosmetic changes.


Soon after the launch they were lapped up the Indian public who were hungry adventure, macho bravado and masculine swag. Their popularity and legend only grew in the 70s and 80s with placement in many hit bollywood movies.  And in the same decades they had equal popularity with the Enfields. This continued till the late eighties, when suddenly the economy bikes from Suzuki, Hero Honda and Bajaj started flooding the market. Particularly the KB 100 from Bajaj and hero Honda CD100 were a big hit in the market. The real blow came when the Indian government outlawed two stroke engine motorcycles.


Though the Jawa/Yezdi motorcycles continued to survive in the B, C towns and rural India, they were mostly absent on urban roads by the early and mid nineties. Finally in 1996 the run of Yezdi motorcycles came to end after the company downed its shutters.       

Many years have passed in between and the Indian public has moved on to other popular bikes india like the Bajaj Pulsar, Hero Karizma, CBZ etc. Inspite of all these bikes ruling Indian roads today, it is still surprising to see people hankering for a motorcycle that they stopped making two decades ago. With this cultish popularity of the Yezdi, there sprang up a whole ancillary industry of parts companies, restoration workshops, sellers, mechanics and what not.










Seeing the turnout on the international Jawa/Yezdi day ride at the Deccan club at East Marredpally in Hyderabad, I am hopeful that the legend of this motorcycle will continue to live in the coming few decades and with it, will thrive, the sublime Indian masculine swag. Long live.


PS: some thoughts on the Nikon D200

http://subliminalwhispers.blogspot.in/2014/07/nikon-d200-review-2014-some-new.html
↧

Nikon D300 Review 2015: Comparison with Nikon D200 & D7000 series cameras.

August 28, 2015, 8:10 am
$
0
0



Before I begin let me tell you this is a completely unscientific, non-technical review. If you are looking for technical reviews you can visit sites like DxO etc.


Preface


I often times speak to other photographers and obviously during the course of the discussion, it comes down to what are you shooting with and what gear you have etc etc. when I tell them I am shooting with a Nikon D200, I mean in 2015, they are like WHAT THE HOLY FUCK? Are you serious? Why don’t buy a Mark III or a D800 etc etc. They see my images and are like “hmmmm yeah they are great pics bro” and I am like “yeah ok” Most GAS afflicted photographers, gear pimps, and camera hookers cant digest the fact that somebody can shoot great images with a bit older camera like the D200 or D300 and these very gear pimps and camera hookers look down on anybody who doesn’t have the latest and the greatest with a condescending attitude. Neither can they tell the difference between a D200 image, or a D800 image or a Mark III Canon image.  


I don’t hate new cameras. I just buy what I can afford and try to make it work to my exacting standards. 


Story


I got this D300 a few weeks back, but couldn’t test it as I became busy with trivialities and after that had fallen sick. So having just recently recovered I decided to test the camera around the house and see how good it is compared to the very well regarded Nikon D200, which I already have.



Yes this camera came out in 2007, which is a long time ago. Even from the sensor perspective people may think its old tech, may be, but pictures from the D300 are not flat like the D7000 series, D5000 series or the D3000 of cameras. This camera is a step above them. The image quality is fittingly pro. The color and tonal depth of the D300 images is far higher than the above cameras.

Right out of the box I was appalled at the images of the D300, I even started to think my D200 was the only contender in the ring. What I thought was a caveat of the D300 is easily correctable in the settings. For two full days I shot hundreds of pictures around the house, testing the various settings on the camera.



Till now my D200 was the parameter by which I measured every other camera. In my opinion nothing came close to match the image quality of the D200. I am saying this in 2015 about a camera that came in 2005. This is the kind of legend Nikon has built over the years. Can you say the same about any of the cameras from canon? I highly doubt it.

So coming back to the D300…after playing with a lot of settings I finally figured out the settings I needed to match the output of D200. Believe me, it wasn’t easy, but I did it.   


Details


White balance is not 100% accurate on the D300, also there is an off chance of not getting colors 100% right, ofcourse that depends on the lighting conditions as well. This was not the case with the D200, no matter what I threw at it; it came out a champion with 100% accurate WB and colors, so much so that I always leave the WB in Auto 99% of the time. Having said that, I would also like to add that it is possible to get accurate results with the D300 as well, only you need to fiddle with the settings a bit.




To get a bit more dynamic range in indoor shooting setup, the Active D-Lighting needs to be on. Without it the pictures lack discernible highlights and shadows in low light conditions, but remember to switch it off if shooting in daylight or bright lighting conditions. I also bumped up the saturation and contrast a bit in indoor settings and this produced excellent colors and tones. For outdoor use I suggest the Active D-Lighting be turned off or put on low. Also it helps if you dial the brightness down a bit when not using Active D-Lighting it helps preserve the highlights to a considerable extent.


Unfortunately there are no color modes on the D300. Also the absence of ‘custom’ picture mode disappointed me a bit.


I liked the smallish LCD on the D200 because of its clarity and color, which are very realistic, though the D300’s LCD is bigger it doesn’t seem like an improvement at all. Colors look odd on the D300’s LCD screen, but look fine on the computer screen. Images shot with the same settings on the D200 and D300 look different on the LCDs, but are fine on the computer screen, discounting a marginal difference in dynamic range and color.


It took me a while to get used to the D300’s new buttons placed in place of the old ones on the D200. The BKT button on the D200 is now ‘play’ button on the D300 and ENTER has become OK. The ‘Copyright info’ is a nice addition, which the D200 lacked.


I didn’t personally find any earth shattering difference in the dynamic range between the D200 and D300. It’s very marginal, if at all. May be 10%-15% depending on what you are shooting.


The Nikon D300 is far better than anything canon makes or has made so far, including the 5d mark II, 50D, 60D, 70D, 7D. I can say this because I have shot with all these cameras and I am a working professional. The canon 7d pictures are flat without any depth or dimensionality. The Nikon D3200 makes better pics than the 7D. Canon and canon fans suck. Yeah I am canon bashing, sue me.


The D300 is a solid, heavy, macho camera for the real manly photographer; this camera is not for the weight complaining wimps and hipster lady boys who want light weight, fancy, mirror-less shit. There I said it. You want a light weight camera? Shame on you man, go lift some weights and grow a pair.


Right now my D300 is paired with the equally macho Nikkor 80-200 f2.8, I call it the ‘Big Daddy’. It’s a deadly badass combination. :D  All the pictures I shot for ‘test’ were from this combination.


I have observed the 80-200 focuses faster on the D300 than the D200. May it is because the D300 has a higher torque autofocus motor in it? IDK, but looks like it.


14 bit RAW files ? yeah baby yeah.. :D




So rushing to sell off the D200? Slow down raisin bran….though the D300 is a visible improvement on the D200, it still is a very capable camera producing extra accurate skin tones, amazing colors and a spot on white balance. It is still a good idea to keep the D200 like I do. Shoot studio portraits with the D200 and sports/action with the D300.

Btw this is a favorite camera of Nikon wildlife shooters.


Upgrade path would be -> D700, D800, D3, D3s, D4, D4s, D3x.


The D7000 series is a downgrade inspite of its supposedly great sensor. Forget it.

The D300's Image quality, colors and tonal graduations are virtually indistinguishable from the CCD sensored D200. Atleast no difference on normal computer screens.


It is advisable to keep the Active D-lighting on 'low' or ‘Normal’ instead of high, if you have to use that feature at all.


I am a big fan of Nikon colors. Their color science is accurate to the dot. Nikon D200 produces colors that are close to Fuji Velvia, comparatively the D300’s colors seem to be a combination of Velvia with a slight hint of Portra. This is just my personal observation.



How is it compared to the D7000 series cameras?


Comparatively the D300 is available for peanuts these days. Around 400-450 dollars. Sometimes even less if you look around. Overall the D300 is a sturdier camera than the D7000 series of cameras. The files from D300 have a depth and dimension that is lacked in the D7000 series cameras, albeit they have a bit more dynamic range and fancier colors. But wait a second, if you have proper plugins /presets you can make your D300 files look like anything you like, say – D7000, D800, D4s or a Leica or a Leaf/Mamiya/Hasselblad etc. The D7000 series of cameras are not outdoorsy cameras, the material around the mount is plastic and these cameras are not suited for wildlife. It is at best a studio camera, but then the plasticky, orangy pinkish hue of the skin tone is a huge caveat, whereas the D300’s neutral setting gives the best skin tone, almost equal to the legendary D200. That said, I haven’t updated my D300’s firmware yet, it supposedly gives skin tones equal to the D2x. Will do very soon. Should be interesting.


Deal makers for the D300…


·        More accurate focusing with 51 AF points. (D7000 has 39 AF points,  that are spread in a smaller area of the frame)

·        Weather sealing + full magnesium alloy body.

·        Balances well with heavy lenses.

·        Pictures have more depth and dimension.

·        Takes CF card which is a more reliable media.


How is it compared to the D200?


After testing extensively I haven’t found too much of difference between the two cameras image quality wise. They are almost the same. Also when zooming to 100% I have found the D200 files to be cleaner than the D300 files, which have a noise pattern, yeah at base ISO when zoomed 100%. May be this micro level noise is what gives the impression of dynamic range, which really isnt. This is a non issue because nobody else does that except pixel-peeping photogs like you and me ;)


The body/build is the same, but somehow the D300 feels a tad sturdier. The autofocus motor on the D300 also seems to be sturdier with more torque than the D200. My 80-200 f2.8 focuses faster on the D300. Also the AF on button and mode button are not recessed like the D200. The LCD is bigger on the d300 but irrespective of size I like the LCD of the D200 as the colors are true on display. Pics from the D300 look a bit different on the LCD than the computer screen. Pictures from both the cameras shot with the same settings look the same on a computer screen. Virtually no difference.




D300 is better than D200 Because….


·        Has bigger LCD

·        Some buttons more outward

·        A bit sturdier than D200

·        More accurate and faster focus

·        51 AF points compared to 11

·        Higher torque autofocus motor

·        More shots per charge than D200



D200 is better than D300 Because....


  • Shutter sound is better on the than D200 (yeah I am a weirdo). The D300 has a clunky plop kinda sound, whereas the D200 sounds like a machine gun comparatively. I suspect there also may be a slight shutter lag, but I didn't test for it. 
  • Fair bit cheaper used in comparison.
  • Better LCD showing true colors. 
  • Custom Picture mode, absent on the D300.

Final thoughts

So these are my thoughts on the Nikon D300. It may be a bit old but it kicks the ass of any new generation camera out there. I am not against new technology, I am only against consumerism. If you can’t get good pictures from your D200 or D300, I can tell for sure you ain’t going very far with a D800 or a D4s.



I will keep both my D200 and D300 and shoot with them professionally in the coming months/years. I have built my career with the D200, which I bought in 2012. Nobody complained because I am shooting with a camera in 2012, which was made in 2005. Same goes with my D300. I will continue using them till there is a really impressive D400 or atleast till I can afford the already cheap D700. I don’t have a clamoring for a D800 or a D4 as I am not shooting any Dolce and Gabbana campaigns any sooner. For whatever gigs I am getting these days, both the D200 and D300 are more than adequate. Again let me remind you, clients pay you for the pictures you make, NOT the cameras you have.

Cheers and Happy clicking 

Hey would you also like to have a look at the D200 review?? Here you go:

http://subliminalwhispers.blogspot.in/2014/07/nikon-d200-review-2014-some-new.html

Here is a story of how I sold off and bought back my beloved Sony a200 DSLR

http://subliminalwhispers.blogspot.in/2015/10/sony-a200-review-2015-or-how-i-got-my.html

-Viisshnu-


↧

Should you buy old manual focus lenses ???

September 14, 2015, 4:04 am
$
0
0
pic from: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-crop-sensor-hd/484807-top-4-vintage-lenses-6.html

Saw an old Zeiss lens on ebay for 50 bucks ?? dont jump with joy just yet. Many photographers do that without realizing these lenses were made before  computers were were used for manufacturing, because of which the elements may not be 100% aligned or there may be some loose bolts in the barrel that we dont know of, which may produce some strange results.  

There is also the problem with dust and fungus inside the lenses. Cleaning yourself may not be an optionand not all technicians are capable or repairing/cleaning  old lenses, and cleaning old lenses is also not cheap either.

pic from: http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/fungus-or-haze_topic64936.html

Another issue is the radio activity (yeah, the hiroshima, nagasaki kind) of certain lenses, but i read somewhere its not that big of a problem. On a serious note would yopu like to try ? before you lose half your teeth and all your hair? I don think so.


I am not trying to scare you or anything, but proceed with caution, you know better.
If at all you have to buy old manual focus lenses, buy minty or like new. The best bets according to me would be the lenses from the 80s and early 90s. As things improved much during this period.

Nikon still makes great manual focus lenses to this very day. Luckily enough they are not as expensive as a Leica or Zeiss.  They are also a great entry point for budding film makers and photographers. Though this brand new manual focus Nikon lenses are not as cheap as say 50 bucks, but having a brand new, dust and fungus free lens beats any justification we give to ourselves for buying old lenses.     


If you are buying pentax or nikon lenses and are using that particular system, it is fine. Otherwise there is whole another headache of finding adapters for these exotic mounts, lack of infinity focus on some lens/adapter combinations.

If you ask me, unless you are buying Leica, Zeiss, Hasselblad, Rollei or Nikon there is no point in buying old lenses. No old lens can beat modern manual focus lenses from Leica, Zeiss, Nikon or even Voigtlander. If you are so fond of old manual focus lenses just go buy a Nikkor 50 1.2 or a Zeiss planar 50 1.4 (superb lens).

The ridiculous thing these days is – these old crummy fungus and dust ridden lenses are costing as much as new lenses on ebay and elsewhere. Human greed has reached its zenith. Chuck this nonsesne and go buy a new lens. You wont regret it.

I request you earnestly to stop having this idea about yourself as a “lens collector”. It is for those rich, jobless photographers who dont need photography jobs to live. Not you. Dont try to be a fancy “lens connosieur”. Its consumerist. Instead be a “Utiliterean Proletariat”. Just buy/keep what you absolutely need. You dont need more than three lenses to make it as a photographer.

I personally only ever bought three lenses in my life. The Nikkor 18-70 for like 150 bucks used from a local photo goods retailer, the 50 1.8D I ordered online brand new for like 90 bucks and the 80-200 f2.8 (as the 70-200 f2.8 is still damn expensive) used from a online classified.

What I mean to tell you from this article is – if you find a minty Zeiss, or a Leica or a Nikon lens buy all means buy it, but remember there is no greatness in having a bunch of old fungus ridden lenses which you are not going to use much anyway.

I am saying this again, be a “Utilitarean Proletariat” not a fancy rich bourgeois “lens collector”. If you feel like buying new lens, remember we are all living in a bad economy and making money with photography and feeding your family is getting harder by the day.

Cheers and happy clicking...


-Viisshnu-    
↧
↧

Sony a200 review 2015 or how I got my beloved camera back.

October 15, 2015, 5:06 pm
$
0
0
Note: You can refer/ cite this article or portions of it or use it under the Creative Commons License. Kindly credit the blog and writer. Thank you. © Viisshnu Vardhan 2015.

Disclaimer: All the opinions expressed in this article are mine and mine only. I am not paid by any camera company to write any article at any time in my life. I am not biased towards any particular camera company. I try to give accurate advice to amateurs and novices as well as pros to the best of my knowledge. I have a background in graphic design, visual communication and advertising. So don’t worry you are in good hands ;) wink wink. 



Hey go grab a coffee, this is a long article :)

You might be wondering why I am writing a review of a camera that came out in 2008. If you are following my blog regularly, then you know already this is something I do, write about things that are not the latest or the greatest. Its my thing. I need to take care of my reputation right? haha. We as photographers, under the influence of gear (pimping) promoting websites, magazines and ‘expert guru trainers’ tend to deride anything that is two years old and scoff at it as old technology. The truth is. It aint. It is as good as your latest blitsy, glitsy blingy gizmolicious $2000 dollar camera. These gear promoters use all kinds of psychological tricks to make you feel like what you have is inadequate, insufficient, outdated, obsolete and irrelevant. It simply aint true. Is the film camera irrelevant today? I don’t think so. It was invented like when? In the early 1920s? even far back? Sure it is inconvenient, I agree, but the image quality? You know the answer to that question. What is the dynamic range of Richard Avedon’s camera? What is the MTF chart of Herb Ritts’ lens like?? How many phase detect sensors did Cartier Bresson’s camera have?? If someone has the money to buy cameras and lenses every week, its great and all, but the rest of us who don’t should carefully look at our options to make the best of what we have and can buy. There is no end to consumerism and human materialistic lust. You buy the latest today, there is a new version tomorrow, and then another new version day after tomorrow. It’s an endless cycle that can adversely affect your finances, emotional and mental well being, family life and social dynamics.

That may sound heavy, but I had to say it 

Ok lets get back to the story…

The story of me and the a200 goes back to feb 2012. At that time I was in search of a camera and came to know of an a200 from a local camera seller in my city. I went there, checked it out and was very impressed with the quality of the images, not to mention the camera was in immaculate condition. I immediately bought it much to the horror of my photographer friends, they derided me for not choosing either a canon or Nikon. The technology was already four years old when I bought it. Then in September 2012 I bought my Nikon D200 and now have a full blown kit with the 18-70, 50 1.8D, and the 80-200 f2.8 along with an old Tamron from the early 70s 85-210 f4.5 constant, which is possibly radioactive.  (Had a Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4D, but sold it off. Regret it. Sigh) I used the sony a200 as a back up, in cases of emergency. I did also use it for a few weddings and events as the main camera and I have to tell you this camera punches far above its 500 odd grams weight.

Recently (June 2015) due to a bit of a temporary financial calamity, I sold off my beloved a200 through classifieds along with the hot shoe adapter, a Polaroid skylight filter and a vivitar flash for less than $200. Its just a couple months back. I spent the money. The camera was long gone.  End of story. Or was it??



A few weeks back I was checking my phone gallery and saw the pictures from a motorcycle shoot, shot with the a200. All of a sudden pangs of pain shot through my heart. Oh my god. What did I do..selling the camera was a huge mistake  I need to have my a200 back at any cost. I called up the guy I sold it to. He wouldn’t give my camera back even when I offered his money back  ohh man the travesty. What am I to do? I immediately went into this ‘restless psycho rodent’ mode and started digging the classifieds.

I started checking each and every classified looking for an off chance to find the a200 or the a300 or an a350….all CCD sensor cameras from Sony. Used Sony DSLRs are hard to come by online, let alone yesteryear CCD sensor DSLRs from Sony. I did find a few classifieds, but either the prices were too high or they were not in a good condition. I also went back to the original camera store in my city where I had bought my a200 previously after seeing their classified for the Sony a350. I nearly bought it, but didn’t as it had a white balance problem and the camera was stuck in tungsten and wouldn’t change even after I reset the camera several times. With a heavy heart I came back home, but didn’t stop checking the classifieds. 

One fine morning a few days back, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, somebody posted a classified for the a200. It was like god send. I immediately called up the guy and fixed a meeting the very next day. He quoted a price of around $300..which was fair enough as the camera was in mint condition, it was hardly used at all. On top of that he was also giving me the original box, with an unused data cable and HDMI cable, power cable with all the warranty papers in original packing. I haggled the price to $206 (INR 13,000) and immediately bought it. There were also a mandarin user manual, an Arabic one and also an English one, along with a lens catalogue (Sony had a very few lenses back in 2008) and also an accessories catalogue. This deal was made in photographic heaven.

Comparatively I had bought my previous a200 for $190 (INR 12,000), without the box or papers. An extra 1000 INR for a camera in this kind of mint condition with box and papers is an extraordinary deal by any standard. 

The good thing is, I have my a200 back and will not sell it again for anything in the world. 

Though the a200  is supposedly an entry level camera, it has a few tricks up its sleeve. For example, you can add magenta in Kelvin, this feature is very useful when shooting wedding portraits. This feature is not available in either canon or Nikon entry level cameras to my knowledge. Its not there on my Nikon D200. IQ of the a200 is also far ahead of the canon and Nikon cameras of its generation. Its really a shame camera companies shifted to CMOS, with this, all the original colors, characteristic of CCD sensors were gone. New colors schemes needed to be created to bypass the low light gathering capability of CMOS sensors. Camera companies worked their way around the limitations of the CMOS, but they didn’t quite arrive at color accuracy..meanwhile they also diverted our attention from this issue, trumpeting high iso, dynamic range, live view capability as some kind of break through, but they were not. In my view any feature that compromises image quality is not a break through. It’s just marketing gimmicks. The quest for quality was abandoned for convenience. The target market, apparently enthralled by these new features lapped up the new cameras as some kind of Holy Grail. In the midst of all this turmoil there were a handful of purists who realized this scam and didn’t budge from their CCD sensor cameras and rightly so. 



There are still quite many photographers around the world who are holding on to their Fuji S5 PROs and Minolta Maxxum 5Ds’,7Ds’, Nikon D100s’ and D200s’. Why ??? There’s not a single CCD camera where there are complaints for color. Just google ‘CMOS sensors bad skin tone’ and you will get thousands upon thousands of complaints online…if these CMOS sensors were so highly advanced why aren’t they able to reproduce accurate skin tones??? Later generation CMOS sensors are now a bit okay, but earlier generation CMOS sensor cameras like the Nikon D300/300s, D90 were horrendous at skin tones and color reproduction. A Nikon D80, or a D200 or a D70s will beat any canon 5D Mark III or Nikon D800 in color accuracy. Yes it’s a fact. If you don’t believe me, you can try shooting colorful clothes and check back with me on that. They were accurate may be, but that was sporadical..it was not consistent. They also needed a lot of time on the monitor for correction. 

I shoot clothing catalogs from time to time and use the Nikon D200 exclusively. You know already how critically important color accuracy is when shooting clothing catalogs. There was not even a single time when any of my clients complained of color inaccuracy. A high street clothing boutique client I work for regularly even noted the color accuracy of my pictures and inquired what camera I used. I simply told him “Nikon” nothing else. He told me previously they had some other big name photographer from Mumbai to shoot for the catalogs, but had to fire him as the colors were inaccurate consistently.  I inquired what camera he was using, the client told me he didn’t know. I requested him to send me one or two original pics. He did. When I checked exif data I was shocked to see it was a Canon 5D Mark III.  Is it because of the CCD / CMOS difference ?? IDK.  

Even today, in 2015, I am yet to see a camera that can beat the Nikon D70s for skin tones. In one of his recent  videos, even Zack Arias accepts the fact that the Nikon D70s is the King of skin tones and he is yet to see a camera that can best the D70s. It was a 6 megapixel sony sensor. It is now in the realm of the legendary. Incidentally I have one soon to be shipped to my address.



The Sony a200 also has DRO (Dynamic Range Optimization) which is equivalent to Nikon’s Active D-Lighting. Btw the Sony a200 sensor is also used in the a300, the a350 also features a CCD sensor in an a200 body albeit with live view and an upgraded 14 megapixel version. This 14 MP version has a less piexel density than the 200 sensor. Hail the pixel density, to heck with high ISO. This 14 megapixel CCD is the highest megapixel APS-C CCD in the world. Nikon only went up to 10 megapixels with its D40x, D60, D80 and D200 after that they switched to CMOS around 2007-08. FYI the highest megapixel full frame CCD is the Leica M9, all other full frames sensors are CMOS. The M9’s 18 megapixel CCD was made by Kodak (Kodak’s sensor manufacturing division was bought out by the European company TrueSense a little while ago).

Sony a200 Anecdote

Skin tones from the sensor are absolutely mind blowing. Straight out the camera. No retouching needed. I was shooting a wedding a while ago and a bride side photographer was shooting with a 5D Mark III. He asked me what camera mine was. I showed him. He was literally laughing. What ? sony? Who uses a sony for weddings hahahaha…I was doing my own thing calmly, he was so busy making fun of me, he missed many important shots from the wedding because of that. After a while he asked to see my pictures, when I did show, his jaw dropped. The sarcastic laughter was gone. He became serious. He started pestering me to tell him how I got those skin tones. I asked him what happened to your camera, he showed me the pictures. Now it was my turn to laugh, but I didn’t. Yellow yellow dirty fellow. It was if both the bride and the groom had jaundice. It was some kind of yellow brownish sludge of a skin tone. It was sickening and repelling. Colors were also off. Though the pestering continued I pretended to be busy with work and after a while he stopped bothering me. After a few days he called me to ask for some shots that he missed. I told him it was against company policy to give out any images. Whose laughing now bozo :)

In the hands of the right pro, a camera like a200 will make miracles. With the advent of lens adapters, you can happily use your Nikon, canon, leica, Minolta MD/MC, Olympus OM, Pentax/M42 lenses (Some old lenses from these companies are not compatible with Sony because the rear element of these lenses protrudes a bit into the mirror box. This can have a catastrophic effect on your camera. So research the lens+camera combination beforehand. However, this is not specific to Sony alone.) Hook this setup on a sturdy tripod and you are good to go. Unfortunately there is no focus peaking on the a200 but that is no problem at all as the camera has a focus confirm in the view finder which makes manual focus very easy. Always use a tripod or a monopod when using long telephotos in manual focus mode. 

Getting Creative 

Very soon, I am planning to use the a200 with the adapter and Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 combination for a fashion shoot. Will keep you posted. 

Sure I can use a 5D mark III for the shoot, but the problem is my pictures will start looking like everybody else’s. In my immediate vicinity atleast I cannot see anybody else with this combination. A photographer’s signature look also comes down to the particular cameras and lenses he uses. Anybody can duplicate the lighting, but the kit? The colors? The particular camera+lens combo? Nobody else can. If you are an amateur or a struggling up and comer who wants to create your own ‘look’ I suggest you don’t use the cameras everybody else is using. This is the lesson from the masters. Create your own list of equipment and use it to create your own signature look and color. This advice equally applies to professionals. 

Bresson used a leica with a 50mm, nothing else. Ansel Adams had his own unique kit. Sally Mann has her own ancient large format camera with her own particular equally ancient lenses, I haven’t seen any other photographer using that kit and nobody else can recreate that kind of images, even if they tried. There are in a realm beyond legendary. She scoffs at the idea of using a modern, fancy DSLR. You don’t know Sally Mann?? Check her work here… she is my favorite photographer. Her work is untouched by any commercialism or materialism..its bare knuckles photography at its absolute best….

Hey bird man enough flying in the clouds now, let’s get practical and come down to mortal earth to  discuss DSLRs ;) wink wink 

Can a pro photog use this camera?

Absolutely. The limitations of this camera can be worked around. There is no PC sync port, but you can easily add a hot shoe adapter on the proprietary sony hot shoe that has sync port. You could add a battery grip as well to make it more balanced. Third party grips are also available, though I personally do not prefer using third party grips. OEM grips or nothing. 

Battery backup is superb on the a200. I shot for a wedding a year ago and I got around 1500 shots on a single charge. Apparently this was because I switched off the stabilization which can drink up battery juice quite much. I was shooting at 1/160th so shooting with stabilization was unnecessary. Incidentally the packaging on the box says only 750 shots. May be Sony had factored in the stabilization feature. 



The a200 sensor is very special. It has some kind of Konica-Minolta Mexicanish like magic sauce inside it. The sensor has a 3D like rendering. Pictures have depth and dimension, NOT flat like canon entry level cameras. I strongly feel Nikon/Sony CCD sensors are one of a kind. Like the Leica M9, though many cameras have come after the M9, there is no true replacement for the camera. The newer CMOS sensor cameras from Leica may have more dynamic range but something is missing, its hard to describe what it is, but something has left the building.  In the same vein I am yet to see a camera from Nikon that can beat the sensors of D70s, D80 and D200. These sensors romance the light in a way that no other CMOS sensors can. There’s also a lot of drama and character in the pictures shot with these cameras. These three cameras are closer to film than modern CMOS sensor cameras from Nikon. I strongly suspect the color schemes of these sensors were specifically created to emulate a particular film stock. Most likely Kodak Ektachrome.   

Studio Application

So coming back to the a200, it is an excellent camera for studio applications. Given its accurate skin tone rendering it can be used for studio portraits. Owing to its excellent tonal rendering this camera can also be used for still life, stock photography, catalogues and much more. Given its inexpensive price, even if one breaks you can happily get another. Its lot better than current generation entry level Nikon and canon cameras. It has an auto-focus motor built in unlike entry level cameras from Nikon. 10.2 megapixels is more than enough for normal use unless you are shooting for huge billboards. Sony a200 .ARW raw files are 12 bit…that’s plenty for the above mentioned applications. Not happy with 12 bit? You can interpolate them to 16 bit and save them at 500 dpi or 800 dpi as TIFFs…problem solved.

For landscapes

I don’t know if it’s the sensor or the bionz processor or some cosmic magic..the a200 renders clouds in all their glory…given this reason alone, you can use this camera for landscapes and cityscapes. I haven’t seen any other camera render the skies so beautifully. With the right kind of inexpensive wide angle like the Tamron  10-24 or the Tokina 11-16, the a200 will start singing melodies. Cant afford either of them ?? how about a cheapy peleng f3.5 8mm fish eye?? Its only around 200 bucks online. Its like 12mm in 35mm terms. 200 bucks for a brand new 12mm wide angle is a damn good deal if you ask me. The on-sensor sharpness of the a200 will offset any softness the peleng may have. If you are shooting at f9, 10 or 11, pictures will be obviously sharper. I don’t own a peleng but planning to get one soon.  If you don’t like the fish eye look for your wide shot, you can de-fish the pictures in photoshop in a jiffy. The good thing about cheapy fish eyes like peleng is that…they are primes and have a fixed aperture. A thing to remember is, this aint no carl zeiss, but if you can use your ingenuity, you can make the pictures look like carl zeiss…which is 20 times more expensive.   
Can you use the a200 as your main body?



Yes and No, depending on where and how you intend to use it. If you are shooting studio portraits, jewellery, stock, products etc., the a200 can be a main body, along with something like an a230 or a a290 as a secondary body. If it is location shooting like for events, concerts, weddings, sports/action etc., then it’s a good idea to have a sturdy pro body like an a77 or an a99 if you are a Sony shooter. Or any other pro body in canon or nikon and to keep the a200 as a second or third back-up. It can also be used to shoot BTS pictures by your sexy assistant while you are going about your work on location when both your cameras are on roll ;)
Fortunately the prices for the a700, a850 and a900 have come down drastically on ebay and elsewhere. No they are not CCD but the image quality is better than Canon and Nikon CMOS cameras of their generation. Image quality wise too they are very near to the latest cameras.  The writer on the SonyAlphaClub blog writes that somehow even the latest sony APS-C and fullframes lack the “fluidity” of the a900 in the pictures. I have to mostly agree with him as I previously spent hundreds of hours checking pictures from the aforementioned cameras on flickr and 500px and can confidently say he has a point. 

As mentioned earlier, I personally have a Nikon pro kit with a D200 body, 80-200 f2.8, 50 1.8, and an 18-70. I built my career with this kit. I am lusting after a Nikon D700, but not in a position to afford it at present. Even if I shift to Sony system, I intend to keep my Nikon system. This way I can mix and match lenses and bodies to get interesting results. May be I will also buy some cheap canon pro body with a Sony and Nikon lens adapter…just for kicks ;)  

Looking back…

Why use yesteryear cameras? Simple reason. They can be had for peanuts. On top of that, they are not far behind the latest cameras in terms of image quality. If you are a frugal photographer like me, hunting the classifieds and getting the camera you want is a lot better than going to the camera store like everyone else….experience wise. There is a sense of achievement when you find cameras like this. That said, I would like to advice you to check the camera thoroughly whether buying from a discounted store or from a seller on classifieds. These ‘old’ cameras are also available through online stores brand new, in box with a huge discount. Unfortunately I don’t have the option of buying like that here in India. Sure I could import from amazon uk or amazon usa but the customs and shipping costs will break the bank. DSLRs from sony are good, even some of the CMOS ones, don’t pass them just because they are CMOS, there are some good CMOS and some bad CMOS. With the latest advancements in photoshop, you are in good hands with yesteryear CMOS sensor cameras from Sony like the a450, a580. I wouldn’t suggest you buy the a700, or a850 or an a900 etc. They are too ancient and a few minutes in dpreview forums you will be convinced they are basically useless with all their caveats. For the price of an a900 I will probably get a Nikon D700, which is an extraordinary camera. Don’t go for entry level SLTs. There are completely garbage. Unless it’s an a77 or a99 there is no point in getting any other SLT below their level (forget the a58). 

The a77, 77II and a99 are amazing cameras. Frank Doorhof uses the a99 alongside his medium format kit. He also uses the a99 for his training sessions. The a7 series cameras are a whole another level, but if you are a frugal photographer like me, you wouldn’t want to buy them. I also feel the a7 series cameras are highly overrated and are impractical for photographers specializing in wedding, action/sports etc as the autofocus is too slow. Besides the fullframe E mount lenses are too damn expensive. Sony, I feel, is indulging in pure thuggery even with their alpha line of lenses. Cheaper lens options are far too few and in between. Why is the Sony 50 1.8 SAM DT lens only for APS-C sensors when the same equivalent lenses from Nikon and canon are compatible with full-frame??? ?? Why is it expensive than Nikon and Canon versions??? Why the hell does it have a plastic mount even though its expensive than canon and Nikon versions ??? Couldn’t you put a metal mount on the lens Sony?? And why the heck does the 85 2.8 full frame compatible lens have a plastic mount and costs $250?? I hope Sony people are reading this. 

Now, the original a7 (the first 24 megapixel version) has come down in price for around $1400 after the a7II was launched. It’s a good deal if you can live with its limitations and 24 megapixels is more than anybody ever needs for anything in everyday practical terms.  Hey if you need anything above 50 megapixel shoot film and scan it at 5000 dpi and save it as TIFF at 32 bit  ;) wink wink. I strongly believe the a7 series are strictly studio cameras, which can only excel under controlled lighting conditions. 

On an end note…



This shot was taken from a fast moving car at 110kmph. Stabilization is ON. 

My whole kit only consists of things I absolutely need. I have no regrets whatsoever for buying things in the whatever ragtag kit I have, however I regret selling a few things when I needed some dough. A penny saved is a penny earned. No matter what you buy, buy it only if you absolutely need it. Do thorough research beforehand. Remember there is no shame in not using the latest and the greatest. Those people who make fun of you (yeah I was there) for using cameras like the a200 are not the ones that feed you or your family. Stay away from peer pressure and GAS. Focus on mastering your lighting and creative/conceptual thinking NOT on acquiring the latest cameras. The same people who may deride you for using your entry level a200 will gasp with awe when you master your technique and unique perspective. Go ahead and create your own path. You can buy the latest and the greatest when you make enough money. Forget buying the kit on your card or on credit or taking a loan. It’s a whole another story if your photography business is running well and you can happily pay for them…my guess is..you aint here because it is.  May be you are just getting started in the business, if you are here reading this article then by no means it’s an accident. Follow my advice. You will not regret it. Think like a Ninja, strike like a Panther. Cheers and happy clicking. 


 --Viisshnu--



↧
Search

Nikon D70s Review 2016: Outdoor Portraits with the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 and more....

February 23, 2016, 8:07 am
$
0
0


I had been lusting after a Nikon D70s since atleast 2011, you might wonder why?. Many reasons – an extraordinary Sony sensor, allmost all features of the D200 in a smaller body, cheap, versatile, the reasons are endless. And yes, it is still relevant in 2016.

D70s is the cheapest camera (used camera as of date from Nikon) with a built in autofocus motor. I bought it cheap for approx $150 from an online buyers forum. Among the cheap backups I initially planned to get a D3200, but since the lack of an autofocus motor is a huge bummer, I wanted to go for a D7000, but then the high prices of this camera put me off. What other options did I have?? Among the older generation cameras I could go for the D80, but its color profile and output is too similar to D200, infact its the same sensor. The D80 has the 2 channel output, whereas the D200 has a 4 channel output (the D300 has a 12 channel output).

JPEG Latitude



Even the basic JPGS from the D200 have a lot of latitude in editing. Unfortunately I cant say the same about the D70s files. I wouldnt say terribly limited, but the limitation shows. The only option if you want good latitude is to shoot RAW, which again is compressed. There are debates online regarding D70s’s compression algorithm, some say its lossy, some say its lossless compressed, i dont know. I havent yet shot RAW with this camera, so cant comment on that.

I am using this camera as a backup and will be shooting RAW subsequently. Whatever the file latitude, dynamic range and IQ I will get from this camera, its plenty enough for a small shoot.
Why I bought the D70s in 2015?



I personally love old cameras and i am a big fan of CCD sensors. As mentioned earlier, i was planning to buy the D70s since atleast 2011, but couldnt find a piece that was good enough and the prices were too high. Another reason i wanted to buy the D70s was that I didnt want to strain my D200 for each and every small hanky panky shoot. I needed a camera for favors that you do for friends, and jobs where the client pay is dicey, small, no budget shoots, that dont require the heavy duty D200. Cameras like the D70s are ideal for small portrait jobs, catalogues etc.



D70s Menu

There is nothing i miss from the D200. All the important menu items I use on the D200 are all there including the custom picture profile. It would have been wonderful if there was ISO 50, but unfortunately no,  the base ISO is 200. Though its not much of a deal breaker as at the 200 base ISO the pictures are noise free because of the CCD sensor. This attribute is absent even in the pro D300 which has the same base ISO of 200 but the micro level noise is apparent in the D300. Sure there is low iso setting, but I couldnt tell the noise pattern difference at the base ISO of 200 and low ISO of the D300. Another surprising omission is the kelvin temparture. I generally shoot between 4500k and 5000k on my D200. Anything above 5000k is too yellow in Nikon color schemes. I miss this one feature from the D200. Sad.


X-Sync

At this side away from leaf shutter lenses which have crazy sync speeds of 1/1600th , its just the D70s the stands as an old guard to the sync speed capacity at 1/500, it is still crazy given the fact that all modern DSLRs come at 1/250 or worse yet with cameras like Nikon D610, its just 1/180, which in my opinion is a bit lame. 1/500 is enough to cut down ambient light and have more light control if you are shooting with strobes. There is a lot of difference between a picture with 1/250 and 1/500 sync speed. Its a full 1-2 stops of light difference (depending on which lighting you are shooting offcourse). You can effectively use ND filters and polarisers for creative effects.

Sensor Tech.

The sensor tech in the D70s is from 2005, when similar cameras like Minolta maxxum 5D, 7D, Fuji S5 pro were released.  6 megapixel was the absolute ceiling for APS-C sensors then. Incidentally the S5 pro has a Kodak sensor (Kodak sensors are legendary). The D70s also has a very high pixel pitch of 7.8 microns.

D70s sensor and the kit lens 18-70



Nikon realized the fact that the D70 sensor is too contrasty and paired it with a lens that has low contrast to offset and compensate for the sensor’s over enthusiasm in color. This lens was specifically developed by Nikon for the D70/D70s. There is neither any problem with the D70s sensor or the 18-70 lens. This is a subjective issue. I personally love rich, colorful pictures.

I did the  mistake of buying the 18-70 kit lens for my D200 after reading some good reviews online. I was tempted by the metal lens mount, weight, better construction, 4.5 max aperture and a 67mm diameter front element, these attributes are all absent unfortunately on the 18-55.

Ironical, as it may sound, the 18-55 is optically superior to the 18-70. Particularly with a sensor like the D200. The 18-70 with the D200 is a downer. The 18-55 with the D200 is a winner. In summary the D200 makes better pics with the 18-55 than the 18-70.


Image quality/comparison with Leica M8 and M9

Doing some research I was surprised to come across a site called Nikon D70 fan on the interwebs. The link is here. There are quite many articles relating to the D70 (D70 and D70s both share the same sensor, but you know that already). Here the author of the blog says that the image quality of the D70 is equal to that of Leica M8 and M9..really??? I want to believe :P

https://nikond70fan.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/sensors-in-deep/


External Controls and Body

Though the body is plastic, it does not feel cheap or flimsy. Compared to the D200, the multi-selector wheel is too small for my big fingers. Thankfully there is a dedicated ISO button. The Camera shares the CF card door to the Nikon D100. Additionally there is a top LCD and an illumination button which is absent on the D200 wherein its a menu item.

Dealmakers for the D70s

  • Built in auto focus motor
  • Top LCD
  • Dirt cheap price
  • CCD sensor
  • Accepts CF card 
  • Separate scroll wheels for both aperture and shutter speed



Happy clicking.

Viisshnu Vardhan.
↧

Leica M8 / M9 in 2017 ??

June 3, 2017, 12:24 am
$
0
0
Leica M8/M9 in 2017 is not suggestible. Its not only a risky proposition given the sensor rot issue, but also a huge economic liability.  Leica recently acknowledged and taken responsibility for the 'rot' in their CCD sensors. Particularly the ones in M9. M8 has a lot of issues and given the high price, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. I feel the M8 was a experiment, a beta version of the M9. They were testing waters with the M8 to put it plainly. Man I love Leicas too, but its hard to justify the price given my meager lifestyle. 

Though the sensor rot has been only acknowledged in the M9, I am sure some problems could arise for M8 sensor too as it is also a CCD.

Here are some useful links:

https://en.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leica-News/Global/2014/Important-Information-Concerning-the-CCD-Sensors

http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/06/leica-announces-permanent-fix-for-ccd-sensor-corrosion-on-m9m9-pmmm-e-models/



http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141059

As a consolation Leica has not only acknowledged the "rot" issue, but also promised to completely replace the sensors free of charge irrespective of warranties which is a very welcome gesture. But the question is why do these cameras costing thoudands of dollars have issues in the first place?? I have to admit my faith in Leica has been shaken a bit. I am not a Leica hater, on the contrary. How long till some one finds an issue with an M240 or an M10 ?? I am starting to think I am better off without Leica, may be I will be happy with a Nikon D7100 or a D610 or may be even a D3400 (not the D3300 as it has a shuter shock issue under 1/250th) or a D5300, but that blurry esoteric light from the bokeh of a 50 f2 lens from a Leica camera keeps calling me like a siren from under the water. I try to resist.  Ironically my not so millionaire economic condition regulates my funkiness. 

If your primary aim to to get the "leica look" I suggest you forget the M8 as its too much of a hassle. I love CCD sensors and still hold on to my D200 with my dear life. The D200, D80, D60, D40x all have great 10 megapixel CCD sensors (made by Sony) with excellent true to life color and depth. A nice voigtlander or zeiss or nikkor prime would help you with that "leica man" image (if you want that). 

The best part is they are all extremely cheap and can be had for peanuts. Break it ?? no problem, you can get a new one. Stolen? no worries, order a new one on ebay. Image quality wise the M8 doesnt have any particular advantages over the above listed cameras. With a clever use of some cheap flash like a vivitar or yongnuo I am absolutely sure you will get some great images. I cant justify the price of a Leica even if I am a millionaire. Save the money and put it to some other good use. I know you wont like my advice, but trust me, I have been there where you are right now. 

Cheers and happy clicking. 

Cheers :cool:
↧

Seiko Epson RD1 vs Nikon D70s/D100 in 2017

June 5, 2017, 7:08 am
$
0
0
Why did I pit these two together?? In 2017 ??


Both are CCD sensors, both are 6 megapixel and both came around more or less at the same time. Now read on:


Original Picture by James Bamford: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimbobuk/101871650/
I sometimes wonder if people are inherently crazy or if the collective human intelligence is diminishing due to all the GMO food, chemicals in water and air. Why am I saying that? 

Apparently we cannot ascertain the value of things with an aware mind. I came to this conclusion after reading about the Epson RD-1 series cameras and their exorbitant used prices on eBay. Too much ?


I first heard about this camera from a book written by Zack arias, Photography Q&A: Real Questions. Real Answers, which I had ordered from Amazon. Recently going through some website I came across this camera again. I went to ebay to check the prices and was shocked to see the average price of $1000 for the earlier models and $2000 for later models. Seriously?? For a 6 megapixel camera that came in 2004? You might as well get the Leica M8 or M9 for that many dollars. 

Original picture by Oliver Korbl : https://www.flickr.com/photos/okorbl/8728758558/

The RD-1 had quite a few iterations in the coming years like the R-D1s, R-D1x, and R-D1xG. According to Wikipedia the camera uses the same interline-transfer Sony CCD (Sony ICX413AQ) sensor as the Nikon D100 and Pentax *ist D, which was originally developed in 2002.  However the excellent sensor of the D70s contrary popular belief, even though with the same megapixel count, is a different version (Sony ICX453AQ).

 Original picture by Toshizoh : https://www.flickr.com/photos/pooh-hoso2/8108590657/in/photostream/
Shot with a Nikon D100

Officially Seiko Epson stopped making it after 2007, but unofficially some “collector” cameras were available new until as recently as 2014. This is an age old “going out of business” sales trick. The Indian government owned HMT watches uses the same trick today to sell their watches. The trick involves announcing that a company is winding up and selling off their stock at a discount. People flog to the shops hoping to own something brand new that will cease to exist and at a discount, sometimes there is no discount but people buy it anyway, just for the thrill of owning it.

Original Picture by Michael Khan : https://www.flickr.com/photos/goforlaunch/25988852906/
Shot with a Nikon D100

Buying a camera just because it has fancy meters and dials is probably not a sound photographic practice. It makes you almost a fetishist. It’s not the camera buttons and dials, but the image quality that needs to be the bench mark for any camera purchase. Well that may be subjective, but I am sure you will not disagree if I say 6 megapixels is too less in 2017. Ofcourse if you are buying it for nostalgia, then it’s a different story. This camera does not justify any Leica or ZM lens on it because the sensor and its algorithms are too ancient to deliver anything worthy.

Original picture by Michael Khan : https://www.flickr.com/photos/goforlaunch/25752860013/
Shot with a Nikon D100

There are far better cheaper cameras which came around the same period as the RD1 like the Nikon D100, Nikon D70s, Minolta Maxxum 5D & 7D etc. Why I am I referencing these cameras here, now ?? They all came more or less at the same time and all of them are 6 megapixel CCD sensors.   I personally own a D70s and this camera doesn’t stop amazing me with its colour depth, rendition and tonal graduations, inspite of its meager 6 megapixel sensor.  If given a choice between a D70s and a D100 I will go with the latter as it has a full magnesium alloy body and can take a beating. This is a fun camera in 2017 for casual fun pictures of family etc, cannot be used professionally because of its meagre 6 megapixel sensor, still that's plenty for a home camera or a testing camera for main shoots for pros.
Original Picture by me-Viisshnu Vardhan:https://www.flickr.com/photos/13638324@N06/22749543172/in/dateposted-public/

Shot with a Nikon D70s.

Trust me when I tell you the D70s is atleast 10 times better than the Epson RD1. If you want a strong magnesium body like the RD1 you can choose the D100 as it’s the cheapest pro DSLR available on eBay today. There are also tons and tons of cheap Nikon lenses that will easily resolve 6 megapixels worth of information. Remember the D100 is also a 6 megapixel camera like the Epson RD1 and they are in fact the same sensor.


Listen to me; make better use of your money. Put it in a bank or buy something for your children.


Cheers and happy clicking!


Viisshnu.



P.S: Here is an exhaustive review of the D70s in 2017. 


↧
↧
Viewing latest articles
Browse all 59 Browse latest View live
Search

Latest Images

Photographer Gifts for Clients / Print Packaging / 4x6 Photo Box by...

Photographer Gifts for Clients / Print Packaging / 4x6 Photo Box by...

April 17, 2024, 6:48 pm
Deepfake Video of Aamir Khan circulates Online

Deepfake Video of Aamir Khan circulates Online

April 17, 2024, 3:07 am
Very Hungry Caterpillar™ Shirt: World of Eric Carle™+ Little Goodall by...

Very Hungry Caterpillar™ Shirt: World of Eric Carle™+ Little Goodall by...

April 14, 2024, 8:14 am
Have you seen Michael Wines? Burien man has been missing since Saturday,...

Have you seen Michael Wines? Burien man has been missing since Saturday,...

April 12, 2024, 3:59 pm
Stay Salty POTS Awareness Stretchy Stacking Bracelets | Set of Three|...

Stay Salty POTS Awareness Stretchy Stacking Bracelets | Set of Three|...

April 11, 2024, 5:27 pm
19 Reader-Favourite March Purchases — From Steals To Splurges

19 Reader-Favourite March Purchases — From Steals To Splurges

April 11, 2024, 5:07 am
Fake lip ring, silver lip ring, simple lip ring, unisex lip ring by AIRlab

Fake lip ring, silver lip ring, simple lip ring, unisex lip ring by AIRlab

April 9, 2024, 4:00 pm
First Pictures of the Eclipse ! ! !

First Pictures of the Eclipse ! ! !

April 8, 2024, 1:08 pm
People's Blog • First Pictures of the Eclipse ! ! !

People's Blog • First Pictures of the Eclipse ! ! !

April 8, 2024, 1:08 pm
People's Blog • First Pictures of the Eclipse ! ! !

People's Blog • First Pictures of the Eclipse ! ! !

April 8, 2024, 1:08 pm