First 28-300 outing

I had the first opportunity to use my new 28-300mm lens last night. A friend of mine held an "indoor garden party". Overall, really impressed with it in all kinds of ways. It's my only SWM (silent wave motor) lens so its autofocus is superfast and really good in low light compared to my 50mm prime. It's also definitely giving me the versatility that I need although last night didn't provide me with the opportunity to test out the long end of the lens but given the low light, high ISO, wide aperture nature of what I was shooting, I'm very happy with the investment. Hopefully it's as good on the long end (I'll get the opportunity to find out at my city's Pride festival next month) and I can't wait to try it on an full frame body.

More Machinery

I'm continuing to use my new HDR software, Machinery, mostly to revisit shots from my 2013 trips to South-East Asia and the USA. The above shot is one which has come out favourably from the process, especially compared to its former Photomatix equivalent. The natural HDR look that Machinery pitches for (as of v2.8) totally eliminates the 'halo' effect that so frequently plagues HDR output as well as getting truer blacks. I'm certainly getting better shots out of it. I still intend to do a proper like-for-like Photomatix vs. Machinery at some point, though.

Manchester Day Parade

It seems like a lot of my entries of late have become rather text-heavy. Better try and liven up the place with some photos, hmm? These were taken at the Manchester Day Parade, a parade in its infancy to stir up a bit of local pride. It's not a big thing but hopefully it will continue to grow. These photos are a touch soft, it's what finally convinced me to upgrade my lens from the cheap Tamron super-zoom I was using.

The D600 dust issue

For those of you not aware, the D600 is known to have an issue whereby dust and/or oil collects rapidly on the sensor, manifesting as spots and smears on photos.

I'd not really thought about blogging about this, firstly because it involves going into a level of (mechanical) technical detail which is an area in which I would not normally dwell and secondly because there's a huge amount of content out there already on the subject. What convinced me to write on the subject was that all the other content I could find tended to only focus on one facet of the issue and a lot of it has not been updated as new information has come to light or attempted to reconcile its own content with other content on the web. I thought I'd attempt to summarise everything I've encountered in my research on the issue. An article that covers everything, from perception to causes to solutions, hopefully in a succinct manner, updating as I discover anything new.

Perception: Is there actually an issue?
Not famed for being a source of universal agreement, the Internet is divided on whether there's an issue at all. The ever-high-profile Ken Rockwell has said that he thinks it's an example of Internet gossip but this would seem to fly in the face of user after user after user who are reporting firsthand experience of the issue, not to mention that it's been reported by no shortage of experts such as LensRentals, petapixel and dpreview. A number of other commentators have gone along the "all cameras get dust on the sensor" route, but this seems to be missing the point that those citing the issue are stating not that "it collects dust" but the speed at which it does it. These aren't first-time camera owners, they've had DSLRs before and are saying that the D600 gets it much faster than any other they've seen, sometimes right out of the box.

So yeah, I think there's an issue. At least for a sizeable chunk of the D600 user base.

What do Nikon say?
Given that the issue had been reported since the product launched in September 2012, it wasn't until February 2013 that Nikon acknowledged the issue. Reports prior to that include stories of cameras being sent in for servicing being returned with the amount of dust described as being "within acceptable tolerance".

Even Nikon's announcement from February is somewhat half-hearted. It's not a "yes, there is an issue" so much as "we hear a bunch of people are unhappy, here's what you can do about it". And that is to send it to them for cleaning. Shipping at your cost but the service should be free.

Is dust a big deal?
So it's dust on the sensor. Just clean it, right? Sure, that works, but be aware that a typical report of the issue is that it manifests from only a few hundred actuations. Do you really want to be cleaning your sensor (or sending it off for servicing, even) that frequently? Not to mention that I believe self-cleaning may actually void your warranty.

What's causing it?
Short answer- nobody really knows. There are a couple of theories around mirror box scratches or short shutter curtains.

Is there a permanent solution?
Since it's a hardware issue, something physical within the machine, it seems likely that there's nothing the user can do. But what about Nikon? A number of users who have returned their D600s to Nikon stated a service category of B1 or B2 on their service reports. Both of these denote that camera parts were replaced (B1 being minor, B2 being major). Are Nikon replacing parts that cause the issue with alternate versions that prevent it? This would also fit with some reports of speaking with Nikon customer service, although these are hard to verify. Does this also mean that new runs of the 600 are being manufactured with these new parts? Possibly, but we've no real way of knowing (or at least I've not found anyone who's compared the parts suspected of causing the issue on older or newer models).

One thing worth mentioning is that there have been reports of the issue apparently improves over time.

Are all D600s affected?
Difficult to say. Nikon's serial numbers work by region so it's harder to tell what's a 'newer run' (the first digit denotes the region) and thus whether it's a 'bad batch'. From the research I've done, it seems that cameras get hit (or at least some users report it) regardless of country, run etc. If newer models are being produced with fixes, it doesn't seem to be apparent from the available evidence. But then not all users say they have the issue so could random bodies really just not have it? Conclusion: Do I get one?
Let's review. From launch, it seems there was an issue affecting a good portion of the cameras. According to some, that gets better. If it doesn't, apparently Nikon can fix it for free if they've not already fixed the route cause on new units.

I'll be honest, it's given me severse cause to hesitate purchasing but I'll keep an eye on news for it while waiting for old stock levels to die down and probably take the plunge before too long.

Lens decision!

I appear to have made a decision with regards to upgrading to a full-frame camera. Well, sort of- I've bought a Nikon 28-300mm full-frame lens to replace my very cheap Tamron 18-250mm zoom.

I guess this means I'm sticking with the Nikon system rather than switching to Canon for the EOS 6D, which is something I'd been flirting with. There are a couple of advantages of this; firstly, I can upgrade and replace my lenses and other kit piecemeal without leaving holes in my lineup since my existing lenses will work on a Nikon full-frame (even if they won't be making the most of its capabilities) whereas with Canon I'd have to replace everything in one go- camera body, lenses, flash, remote & triggers. The other reason for sticking with Nikon is Canon's lens line up, specifically on the telephoto side of things. Here's what I mean- this is the Nikon lens I bought and this is the Canon equivalent. Both are 28-300, f/3.5 - 5.6, image stabilising, full-frame etc. etc. The Nikon one (at time of writing) is around £650 on Amazon, the Canon £2050. Their product lineup would seem to suggest that Canon will let you have 50mm into the hundreds fine, but if you want to start lower, they deem that to be a 'pro lens' and you're into more serious money. That's not an option for me and I can't see an alternative in their lineup, nor from the likes of Sigma, so that sort of decided it for me.

I know I could get a 75-300 or some such but I'm not willing to take on an extra lens. The idea is to build a lineup of:
+ Super wide-angle
+ Prime portrait (35mm or 50mm)
+ General versatile & telephoto

The 28-300 will certainly offer benefits over my current lens- not only is it longer (on crop sensor, anyway), but it's got vibration reduction, advertised as making up the equivalent of four shutter stops of speed, allowing you to shoot slower. Not only that but it's f5.6 at the long end, compared with 6.5 on what I have now. All told, it should make for a considerably quicker lens (and hopefully sharper, too).

All of this, combined with me finding a cheap Nikon refurb was too much to resist. I'll update more once the lens arrives. Hopefully in the next couple of days.

HDR Machinery update

I'm still using Machinery for my HDR processing. Overall I'm really happy with the software, particularly in contrast to Photomatix which it beats hands-down in terms of speed and transparency of process. It's ghost removal isn't anywhere near as good but I suppose you can't have everything.

That said, it's had a couple of updates lately up to version 2.8 which have seemingly removed a couple of features that I routinely use to achieve the particular look that I want. First, the 2.7 update (or possibly 2.6) removed a 'midtones' slider from the HDR processing panel and 2.8 seems to have shifted the 'lights' and 'shadows' slider to post-processing rather than having them affect the HDR process itself and I'm struggling to achieve my usual look as a result.

Hopefully I'll find a method to recreate what I could do before, I'd hate to think the product update has meant a genuine loss of functionality.

Update: Seems like the the light/shadow sliders are actually feeding into the HDR process as they did before but I'm still not still not sure that I'm able to use them to get the same contrast in, for example, clouds as I used to be able to without making items in the foreground unworkably dark. I'll keep plugging away at it and also maybe see if I can find an installer for v2.6 while I'm at it. Being able to dual-install both versions would be nice but I don't know how workable that is.

Nikon D7100 vs. D600

As mentioned before I'm a D7000 owner, Nikon's top-tier cropped sensor model. I'm keen to upgrade to a full frame camera and had been waiting with bated breath for the release of Nikon's entry-level full frame model, the D600, which I felt didn't quite deliver what I wanted from a model at that position in Nikon's product hierarchy, both in terms of price and functionality. The latest twist in the tale is the introduction of the D7000's successor, the D7100 released a short time ago.

As a bit of background, Nikon have got a point where all of their current models have been released in the space of a little over a year and it looks like there are some baselines being established across the lineup- the Expeed 3 processor (used across all current models) and the 24.7mp sensor on the lower half of the portfolio, for example.

What I find curious is that the new D7100 offers a number of key technical specs which are superior to the D600 despite being from a lower tier. Obviously this isn't unusual if the higher tier camera is an older model but the 600 launched a mere five months prior to the 7100.

My interest is particularly from the viewpoint of HDR photography, which is what I find myself doing, most commonly. Much has been made of the impressive dynamic range of the now-standard Expeed 3 processor in the D600 and its ability to provide 1-shot HDR from RAW as well as an in-camera HDR function. So it's safe to say that the D600 is a very capable HDR camera despite only provide 3-step auto-exposure bracketing (AEB), something I've commented on previously. This does not detract from the oddness that the D7100, with the same sensor and processor, still provides 5-step AEB on a lesser model. Why almost immediately one-up your own new camera, which made much of its HDR capabilities, with one from a lower tier?

So why is this a problem? If the 7100 is superior for HDR, why not just upgrade to that? Because the 7100 is still crop sensor just as the 7000 was, thus forcing HDR shooters into deciding between superior HDR capabilities (not to mention the D7100's increased focus points and built-in WiFi) on a crop sensor or a full-frame model that doesn't quite deliver what it should on the HDR front, the likely result being that, like me, they may either refrain from purchasing altogether or, worse from Nikon's POV, notice that the Canon EOS 6D doesn't force them to choose.

Edited on 17/04/2013

HDR compare and contrast

I stumbled upon HDR One magazine the other day and obviously it's a great resource for the type of photography that I most commonly do. As well as the articles themselves, it's also provided some great suggestions of HDR software out there. I've picked up a demo of Machinery to try it out and it's definitely an interesting contrast with Photomatix. Machinery does profess an intent towards natural HDR, which isn't usually what I aim for but maybe I should. All the more reason to experiment.

I must emphasise at this point that I have, at time of writing, only had to run a couple of images through it so there's lots more exploration to be done but here are two images- the first done in Photomatix, the second done in Machinery: The difference is obvious- Machinery certainly does create a more naturalistic HDR image. Also look at how crisp that bastard is! Not only does Machinery provide built-in sharpening but the halo-ing effect (so often the bane of HDR) is reduced, presumably due to the more natural look. Take a look at the streetlights on the left of the image, for example (both in the foreground and the BG) and the superior detail on the shelf of Buddha figures. It's also astonishingly fast and does a genuine live change as opposed to Photomatix's two-stage 'guestimate' process, which has always bothered me, to be honest.

Obviously this image comparison also depends on the settings and post-HDR-processing each image has been run through. They've both had the contrast lowered and brightness increased. The Photomatix image was sharpened a touch and the Machinery one had it's saturation upped a bit since lowering the contrast left it a little washed out (or maybe I'm just too used to Photomatix output).

Overall, perhaps as you'd expect, it seems that the different softwares both have areas in which they are superior but it certainly seems that the de facto industry standard position that Photomatix seems to enjoy can be challenged. In any case, I definitely need to do some more experimentation with Machinery to see what I can get out of it but first experience has definitely left a positive impression.

More exposure

A couple of bits of exposure over the last couple of days- first, a photo I took of a statue of Cupid in... Norway (or was it Denmark?) headed up an article on Wired.com. It's not my favourite photo by any means, but it serves the purpose. Then today, my city's local newspaper used an HDR photo I took of a local landmark in this article.

This is where stuff gets interesting- MEN didn't tell me they were using my picture, nor did they link to my Flickr account- a randomer commented on my Flickr account telling me that they'd used it. Then one of the other photographers whose photos had also been used. While it's fine for them to use my photo by the terms of the creative commons licensing I've placed on them, the other photographer enforces copyright on his and they'd not contacted him prior to using his photo either. Poor show for a professional publication.

I'm just grateful of the exposure, however, even if they're not generating me traffic through a link.

Southeast Asia photos

I struggle to know what to write about travel photos so I think it's safe to say I'll never be a travel blogger. It suffices to say that, for my Southeast Asia trip, I took in a great number of locations over three weeks and got a few dozen decent photos out of it. In lieu of a more wordy description, here's a small selection of the photos taken on that trip. The full selection and perhaps a bit more info on each shot can be found in the Flickr set.