Blog Week Day 2 – The Many Faces of my Favourite Spot on Three Bridges Road

For the second post of my blog-a-day week I’ll share what I consider one of the loveliest spots near Waterloo, the crossing of the Conestogo River on Three Bridges Road. Located just west of St. Jacobs and a short drive from where I work, it’s a great spot to go during lunch or at the end of the day to grab a few shots.

In the summer, the river is shallow and slow-moving. In the late winter and early spring with a heavy melt, it’s a torrent and the low bridge is lost completely beneath the water. Regardless of the seasonal changes, I’m still amazed at how many different types of photos I can get at the same place. It just goes to show that you don’t have to travel far to get great shots (or pretty good shots, at least).

I used a wide range of equipment for these photos. The bodies (Nikon D300s, D7000 and N80, Bronica ETRS) were paired with lenses (Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, Nikon 35 f/1.8, Nikon 60 f/2.8G Micro, Nikon 85 f/1.8G, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Tokina 50-135 f/2.8, Sigma 50 f/1.4, Bronica MC 40 f/4, Bronica EII 75/2.8). On the self portraits I used Nikon SB-700 and SB-900 strobes with CLS control.

I’ll give a prize to the person who gets the most correct gear-to-photo matches!

img075 DSC_8725-Edit DSC_4102-Edit DSC_2765 DSC_4897 DSC_3356-Edit img148 DSC_4933 img041 DSC_0168-Edit img138 DSC_4771-Edit DSC_2308-Edit

ObG Thursdays – A Toadstool and a Fly

Here’s a photo from a camping trip at Killbear Provincial Park that I took with my friend Michelle back in 2009.  For a couple of years my absolute favourite lens was the Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 and this photo shows exactly why. The bokeh, colour, contrast, sharpness were all perfect. Just perfect. On a DX body it gave a 75-200mm field of view.  This lens was my big reward for getting a job after finishing my masters and I used if for thousands of photos.

The Oldie-but-Goodie photo was taken at 135mm f/5 1/800s ISO 800.

IMGP0069-Edit_cropAs a treat here’s a 100% crop of the fly.

IMGP0069-Edit_fly_crop

My Full Frame Long Weekend – Sony α850 + Sigma 50mm f/1.4

Ever since 2004, when I got my first digital camera, I have been a cropped sensor shooter. Otherwise known as APS-C, or DX to Nikon folks, cropped sensors are 18x24mm in size compared to full frame sensors, or FX in Nikon land, that are the size of 35mm film (24x36mm). With its smaller size, a DX sensor captures a smaller area of a lens’ image circle, giving a narrower field of view compared to FX. On FX a 50mm lens looks like one would expect a 50mm lens to look on film (a fairly natural field of view). A DX sensor, imaging just the central portion of the image circle, gives the field of view of a 75mm lens. A good demonstration is here.

Full frame has other benefits besides having the “right” field of view. Physics tells us that a bigger sensor will have lower noise (for a given pixel technology) and more shallow depth of field. In general a full frame camera will have a bigger viewfinder to accommodate the bigger pentaprism needed for the bigger mirror.

I love shooting film for the same reason. Lenses look like they should. The viewfinders are large and bright. I feel like I have tunnel vision when I switch back to my digital SLRs, even though the D300s and D7000 have some of the biggest viewfinders for DX bodies.

This past weekend (plus the Thursday and Friday I took off from work) I borrowed my co-worker Bill’s Sony α850 to get a little taste of shooting with a full frame camera. He gave me the Sigma 50/1.4 in Sony mount to go along with it… the perfect choice since I own the same lens for Nikon and already have a good feel for how it performs. Over the weekend I had a few good opportunities to shoot, and in a variety of situations too.  Mitzy and I went to Eugenia Falls near Collingwood, Ontario for a hike and one of the tastiest dinners I’ve had in a while. Here’s my favourite shot from the day (f/2 1/350s ISO 100):SONY DSCI think that this photo demonstrates what I like most about a fast 50mm on a larger sensor. The shallow depth of field combined with a natural field of view has a classic look to it. It’s exactly the kind of image I’d hoped to be able to take with the combination.

Now, am I going to take the plunge and move to full frame? Is the step up in image quality and shooting experience worth the pain of selling at least one of my DX cameras and four of my lenses? The cost of FX gear is considerably higher than DX and I’m just not sure if it’s the way I want to go. Take a look at the following images and maybe you can help me decide…SONY DSC SONY DSC SONY DSC SONY DSC SONY DSC SONY DSC SONY DSC

What’s in My Bag Part 1 – The Digital Kit

I thought it was about time that I do a little show and tell with the gear that I shoot with. I’ll start today with the Nikon digital kit. The two digital bodies I use are the D300s and D7000. Both are APS-C (Nikon calls this DX) bodies, meaning the sensors are smaller than a 35mm negative (or Full Frame sensor, which Nikon calls FX). This crop comes into play when looking at the focal length of a lens. A 50mm lens on an FX body has the field of view of a 50mm lens; however on a DX body is has the field of view of 50mm x 1.5 (=75mm). Thus a standard prime on FX is a short telephoto on DX. I’ll get back to this shortly. First, here is my digital kit:P1110569-EditThe bodies I’ve already mentioned. On the D7000 at the left is the Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.8 G and on the D300s at the right is the Sigma AF 50mm f/1.4 EX. The remaining lenses, from left to right, are Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (version I), Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 G, Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8, Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G and Micro-Nikkor AF-S 60mm f/2.8 G. The flash at the left is a Metz 48 AF-1 and on the right is a Nikon SB-700. Not pictured is the Nikon SB-900 that I used to light the picture.

Let’s take a quick look at each of the lenses.

Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.8 G

This DX lens has a field of view (FOV) of 52.5mm (35mm * 1.5) and intended to be a “normal” prime, meaning that the FOV is close to that of the human eye. I find that a slightly wider FOV, something like 42-45mm equivalent, feels more natural to me. This lens is small, light and sharp sharp sharp. The bokeh is decent too. It’s fast and accurate enough to focus as well. There’s really no reason to not have this lens along with me at all times.

Sigma AF 50mm f/1.4 EX

For a 50mm this lens is huge. The filter thread is a massive 77mm. It also weighs quite a lot. It tends to over-expose on both of my bodies and can have inconsistent focus in low light situations. That said, I love it. The IQ on this lens is wonderful, even at f/1.4. With a FOV of 75mm it is just right for portraits.

Micro-Nikkor AF-S 60mm f/2.8 G

This Micro (as Nikon likes to call Macro) lens is a gem. It is the only lens I own with Nikon’s special Nanocoating, used to increase contrast and reduce flare. The optical quality at any aperture is just phenomenal. Not only that but the autofocus is lightning fast, presuming you are focussing on a subject with sufficient contrast. This lens focusses right down to 1:1 magnification (meaning that the size of an object is reproduced to exactly that size on the sensor/film). Unfortunately to get to this magnification the front of the lens must be only a few centimetres from the subject, making lighting somewhat difficult. Since the FOV on a DX body is 90mm I often use this lens for portraits (although the Sigma 50mm and Nikkor 85mm have taken on much of this responsibility).

Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G

My newest lens, the 85mm f/1.8 fills the void of the fast telephoto lens (with a FOV on DX of 127.5mm). I have nothing but great things to say about this lens.

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

Back when I shot Pentax, this was at the top of my list for lenses I’d wished were available for that mount. When I switched to Nikon it went to the top of my list of lenses for my kit. This lens (a 16.5-24mm equivalent) is nice and sharp and keeps distortion pretty well in check. The chromatic aberrations are atrocious but can be easily removed in Lightroom.

An ultra-wide lens such as this is more of a specialty lens, being useful only when a very wide FOV is needed. I will commonly use it in weddings when I want a grand view of the church or hall or in landscapes when I want plenty of foreground but still keep the background in view.

Nikkor AF-S 17-55 f/2.8 G

This 25.5-82.5mm equivalent lens is by far the most versatile in my bag and is my go-to lens for weddings and events. It pairs perfectly with the D300s and since both are weather-sealed I can use them in outdoors in terrible weather. Other positives for this lens are incredibly fast focus and true professional build quality. While this lens is mechanically the best I own it does have some negative aspects. Contrast and flare resistance could be better. I find that at some focal lengths the sharpness is inconsistent across the frame (something I will characterize one day with the right test charts). I’m also not a fan of how the lens pairs with the D7000. The images don’t have the clarity I like. All that said, I use the 17-55mm more than any of my other lenses because of its versatility and reliability.

Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8

When I shot with Pentax gear one of my favourite lenses was the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8. Fortunately, Tokina sells a version of the lens for Nikon. The Tokina copy has all the sharpness of the Pentax, rivalling Nikon’s 70-200mm f/2.8 and f/4 zooms. Mechanically, I have no complaints and the focus is accurate and fast enough. I do wish the lens had more contrast and flare resistance but both can easily be fixed in Lightroom/Photoshop.

Now that I’ve presented my digital kit, a few trends are apparent. Notice that I don’t use any “slow” lenses, with my maximum apertures ranging from f/1.4 to f/2.8. Fast glass gives me the low light shooting ability that I need for weddings and concerts. I also have more DX lenses (35mm, all three zooms) than FX lenses (50mm, 60mm, 85mm). I’ve found that FX lenses are just too expensive for what I need. The Nikkor 24-70mm, for example, is 50% more expensive than my 17-55mm on the used market. Likewise, to buy a good 70-200mm f/2.8 I’d be looking at $1500-$2000 vs the $500-600 that the Tokina 50-135mm cost. Yes, I do lust of the exotic FX glass but for now I’m quite happy with what I have.

Any thoughts or comments?