-
22 Feb ' 11:54
Last update: 22 Feb 2012
New ArticleFeb 22 (news)--Another new article for your bemusement: the pain of photography.
Software UpdatesFeb 22 (news)--Time for the regular software update news. I called out Camera Control Pro, View NX2, and Capture NX2 separately, but in case you missed that, all of the Nikon apps have now undergone updates to deal with the upcoming D4 and D800. There were even some nice little additions in those updates, as well. Everyone using those products should update.
DxO updated Optics Pro to version 7.2.1, and this now adds the Nikon 1 cameras into the mix, as well as updating for some other recent cameras.
Akvis continues to see how they can count, with version 13 of Enhancer adding GPU acceleration, new presets, and DNG support.
Alien Skin introduced Exposure 4, with these Photoshop and Lightroom plugins getting a completely new UI and controls. Everything is faster, too.
In the Mac App Store world: Photo Sense 1.7.0 is a photo enhancer which now adds customizable aspect ratios, improvements in the crop and straighten tools, plus some bug fixes. CameraBag 2 is a non-destructive image editor that uses a 32-bits/channel engine. It has layers, filters, and over 100 styles.
Update: Don't panic. Bythom isn't going away. But it will mutate. As I always do, I'm using the change imposed on me to re-evaluate everything. I'm sure there will be some short-term visible changes, but I also want to use this "opportunity" to make long-term, functional changes to just about everything I do, and make what I do for the photographic community even better.
-
20 Feb ' 18:52
Where's B&H? Changes Impact bythom.comFeb 19 (news and commentary)--I've removed the B&H Support this Site links, as B&H has cancelled the program for Web sites located in Pennsylvania. For the full details on what's happening, click here. Short version: the state of Pennsylvania just made a revenue grab that's actually likely to cost them money. It certainly cost me money. The Amazon links remain for the time being because Amazon has a presence here in PA, and apparently hasn't yet decided what to do.
There's a high likelihood that bythom.com just lost it's only revenue sources, and this was done not by changes to state law open for public comment, but by press release edict. This came from the Governor's initiative, so if you're a PA resident and wish to complain, click here. Also, you can complain to your PA state senator by contacting via here.
-
20 Feb ' 07:39
Last update: 19 Feb 2012
No Teaching Point This Week. Yes, it's been a long time since I've taught a workshop. I'm currently planning for workshops in 2013 and 2014, including where I took this shot in the Galapagos (see middle, right column if you're interested).
Nikon Still Doesn't Get WorkflowFeb 19news and commentarymyPicturetown got a bit of an update this week (hmm, services don't seem to use version numbers, so you can't say v1 versus v2; that hides the progression of features, which is I guess what they want). Specifically, myPicturetown now has links to Facebook and can Twitter about new albums that you create. There's also some new album designs and a couple of new security features for those who actually pay for the service (those that don't pay don't need security?).
But here's my problem. myPicturetown is actually growing the workflow hassle, not reducing it. Shoot>card. Card>computer. Computer>myPicturetown. myPicturetown>Facebook. Apparently no camera manufacturer other than the deceased Kodak has read my manifesto on socializing photos: Shoot>Anyplace with the migration happening automatically on connection using preferences or overrides you make on the camera. That's the workflow users want. Not Camera>Transfer>myPicturetown>Facebook.
Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing that Nikon is beginning to realize that photographers actually want their images to go somewhere other than a Nikon server. After removing the emailing option from ViewNX2, the howling protests got them to put it back and actually add a bit to the options on that. Now myPicturetown has some nascent Facebook and Twitter capabilities. Those are small steps in the right direction. But where's Flickr support? Oh, wait, that's a rival to myPicturetown ;~). Where's EasyShare? Uh-oh, another competitor. Where's Blurb, Shutterfly, and a ton of others?
Nikon is once again trying to find a lock up in which they can ensnare users. If you use Nikon Transfer, for instance, there's a myPicturetown option, but no Facebook option. You can't tag some images to be sent via email to someone as well as stored to your computer. No, you have to use another Nikon software product to do those things, and then you can only do the things that Nikon gets around to letting you do. That's not a good workflow solution.
Over ten years ago I gave a presentation to industry folk on the notion of hub. Cameras need to feed a hub and the hub needs to be where you manage all your workflow. The hub can't be two steps removed from the camera. The hub should be where the images go automatically. The hub should be extensible, and it should be capable of doing all the image management a user desires, regardless of what that is.
To some degree, iPhoto, Aperture, and Lightroom now come somewhat close to my hub concept. myPicturetown could get there, but as it is currently being developed, it's decidedly sub par. A hub, properly configured by its user, reduces workflow, not increases it.
Let me end on this note, which will probably be a surprise to many readers of this site (and unfortunately, a few camera makers): most images now live in the cloud. That's being driven by the images that are coming off camera phones, which need somewhere to go and the easiest place is to somewhere on the Internet. The hub for the youth is fast becoming not their home computer, but either the phone itself or some Web service, such as Facebook or Flickr. The workflow for taking an image on a phone is simpler than that of taking an image on a camera. Is it any wonder that compact camera demand is drying up? (And wait until the phone makers discover that accessory camera modules open up new revenue streams for them.)
True, many of you reading this are older, more conservative, and use more film-like linear workflows. Your images don't live in the cloud (partly because you can't afford to put thousands of those 36mp D800 images you're about to shoot into the cloud, and it would clog your Internet pipes if you tried. Still, the same concept of hub applies locally as well as remotely, and the popularity of Lightroom is a testament to that. Nikon needs to move the hub closer to the user if they want to play at software.
Why is the D700 Still in the Lineup?Feb 19Nikon's made it clear that they're still making D700's. Some are misinterpreting this to mean that a D700-like camera will stay in the lineup until it is directly replaced by something other than a D800.
I believe the reason why we're still getting new D700's is simple: the quake and flood. I'm pretty sure that Nikon ordered parts to make some fixed number of D700 units. They continue to make the camera because they haven't hit that number. The quake shut down Sendai, then caused them to redesign and change the plant, then some parts didn't come in because of the flood plus then they began early production of other new models at Sendai, which involves training and new procedures. All of which conspired to keep finished D700 models in short supply recently. But I don't think Nikon cancelled parts orders. In other words "we still have parts in stock or coming in, so we'll keep making them."
Nothing wrong with that. Indeed, it gives us more FX options these days than ever before, and the D700 is still a very competent camera. It's playing the role of entry-FX even more so than before. But a lot of people are making the leap to "there will be a direct D700 replacement, too." I'm less sure of that. There should be one, but I'm not sure there will be one. Even if there eventually is something to fill its role as entry FX, that would still be more than a year off. Nikon has three other cameras to update first, and they're all DX.
So enjoy the extra FX option while it lasts.
SystemsFeb 19byThom readers might be interested in an article I posted on sansmirror.com about what it means to select a "system" these days.
Thom's Workshops Thom is currently planning a few workshops for 2013 and 2014. At present, the schedule is tentatively:
May 2013: South Africa (max 6) August 2013: Botswana (max 12) Feb 2014: Galapagos (max 14) Nov/Dec 2014: New Zealand or Patagonia (max 14)
If you're interested in getting information about these workshops when details become available, send Thom an email or, better still, follow bythom on Twitter. Because Thom's workshops fill up so fast, those waiting for email notification are at a disadvantage.
-
18 Feb ' 10:27
Update 2: A few people objected to my Update; "just raise the shutter speed" they said. But that's my point. If I'm in a situation where I need f/8 for DOF and the correct exposure is 1/125, I might not be able to raise my shutter speed unless I change something else, like ISO. This is what shot discipline is all about: running through all the negative factors that might impact your photograph and pick actions that will remove, mitigate, or compensate those factors.
-
18 Feb ' 01:25
Last update: 17 Feb 2012
Nikon Shakes Up D800 WorshipersFeb 17 (commentary)--If you haven't yet seen it, NikonUSA released a D800/D800E Technical Guide today. Based upon some of the early emails I'm getting, it's shook up a few of the faithful. As one reader queried me "does this mean I won't be able to handhold the D800?"
Oh dear.
There's nothing new in Nikon's document. As I've written for some time now, in order to achieve the best image quality these new high-end devices are capable of we as photographers have to get better at shot discipline. If you're sloppy in your shooting techniques, you'll get sloppy results. Indeed, if you think that just increasing a number (megapixels) gives you better images, you're naive. More megapixels might give you better images, but it doesn't guarantee it. Just like a Ferrari might allow you to get up the winding road to your hilltop home faster, but it doesn't guarantee it (fortunately cameras won't spin off the road and run into trees ;~).
We've actually gone through this dance twice before: once when the 6mp users finally got around to upgrading to the D7000, and once when everyone starting trying to use the D3x.
Anyone opting for a D800 who wants it to achieve the image quality it's capable of needs to:
- Use good shot discipline.
- Retire the inexpensive lenses they own that aren't up to the job.
- Understand where diffraction begins to steal back acuity.
- Learn how to focus accurately.
Exactly what I've been writing about for years. If you're worried, check out some of the Technique article links in the left column. Or read these two articles along with Nikon's new brochure:
Shot Discipline 1Shot Discipline 2
Update: A D7000 isn't exactly a D800. Some people think that the pixel density is the primary factor requiring tight discipline and because those cameras are the same, shot discipline needs to be the same. Consider this: a 16mm lens on D7000 puts ~5000 pixels across 74 degrees, while a 24mm lens on a D800 puts ~7000 pixels across the same angle. Put another way, 1° of motion is 68 pixels on the D7000, 94 pixels on the D800. 1° on a D2h was just 33 pixels and 41 pixels on a D70, You've got to handle a D800 cleaner than a D7000 folks. At least if you're going to pixel peep to see how good the results are.
Moire happens when your sampling frequency (sensor pitch) begins to coincide with the captured detail frequency (subject pitch). As you pass the Nyquist frequency, problematic artifacts are produced, moire and color fringing being common ones on Bayer systems.
That's not exactly true in the man-made world (especially the Western cultures). Buildings tend to have all kinds of repeating patterns. We typically build on grids and we use products that have fixed sizes. Exactly the type of thing that can trigger moire. Same thing applies to the clothes we wear: many are made with repeating weaves with fixed size threads. Another common problem occurs with hair, where you don't get large blocks of moire, but you do get color fringing and artifacts on edges.
It's not a coincidence that most of the moire examples you see in articles about it are one of three things: test charts, buildings, or fabrics. I have a screen door at my office that does a very nice job of showing moire when I need a sample.
-
17 Feb ' 14:15
Last update: 16 Feb 2012
Capture NX2.3.1Feb 16 (news)--Nikon introduced a new version of Capture NX2 that's compatible with the upcoming D800 and D800E.
More on MoireFeb 16 (commentary)--A recurring question in my In Box right now has to do with what subjects trigger moire.
Moire happens when your sampling frequency (sensor pitch) starts to coincide with the captured detail frequency (subject pitch). That can happen with any subject.
However, nature is pretty random with frequencies while man isn't. Even things that look like exact patterns, like bird feathers or tree rings, usually aren't. They have some randomness to them much of the time, and thus when you shoot natural objects, the tendency to get large patches of moire is relatively low. It's possible, certainly, but in my experience, I've not photographed anything in the natural world where I've had an image ruined by moire. A few here and there that need some post processing touch up, but ruined, no.
That's not exactly true in the man-made world (especially the Western cultures). Buildings tend to have all kinds of repeating patterns. We typically build on grids and we use products that have fixed sizes. Exactly the type of thing that can trigger moire. Same thing applies to the clothes we wear: many are made with repeating weaves with fixed size threads.
It's not a coincidence that most of the moire examples you see in articles about it are one of three things: test charts, buildings, or fabrics.
So the question you have to ask yourself before removing the AA filter on a camera is this: what do I shoot? Is it things that tend to occur in nature and mostly randomly, or is it things that have man-made, non-random components to them? If the former, it's going to be rare that you have to worry about post processing moire, and it's also not likely to be large and highly destructive moire, at that. If the latter, you're going to encounter moire a lot more often, and it can be over very large areas and occur in ways that are much more difficult to remove visually.
That's a gross simplification, of course, but it's a good starting point from which to base a decision.
-
15 Feb ' 11:40
Last update: 15 Feb 2012
Nikon 1 Book (2) D4 Book (0) D800 Book (0)
D3, D3s, D3x, D4, D700, D800, D800E, or Wait?Feb 15 (commentary)--That headline seems to be the question of the month. More so than I think Nikon or anyone else expected, a lot of you have been planning to "eventually get to FX." You've been making your lens choices that way, often buying lenses that make some sense for both DX and FX use. The fact that Nikon seems to refuse to make a full range of DX lenses just adds to that customer tactic.
But some of you seem surprised that US$3000 is still the lowest price for an FX body. It's the sensor that does that. Sensor cost goes up rapidly with size. It used to be that it was $5, $50, $500 (compact, DX, FX). While those prices have changed a bit in relationship to one another, FX sensor prices are still very high and ultimately dictate the price of the product. Manufacturing rule of thumb is you multiply parts cost by 3.5 to get retail price impact, so a US$400 sensor means that there is US$1400 worth of cost in the final product implied by the sensor alone. You still need to put electronics, viewfinder, shutter, battery, body, LCD, controls, and more into the product.
So how did Sony manage a US$2000 FX body? By ignoring costs, basically. Their hope was that by underpricing cameras like the A850 they could get leverage in the high-end camera market. The strategy didn't work, and next time we see Sony in the full frame market, they'll take a somewhat different approach (EVF, for one thing).
Meanwhile, we've got what looks like Nikon's next generation of FX sitting in front of us, so Nikon users who were thinking about FX are all asking themselves the question in the headline. Let's take things backwards:
- Wait. There's a chance that the camera that appears between the D7000 and D800 will be FX. Many think there won't be a camera between those, but I'm 100% sure there will be. The price gap is too large, and it's too easy for Canon, Sony, and Pentax to use that to advantage if it's not plugged. There needs to be a camera at somewhere between US$1700 and US$2000 in Nikon's lineup. The question is whether that will be a high-end DX or a low-end FX. History and price say that it will be DX and called a D400. But Nikon's been on an aggressive bent lately. It's not out of the question for them to pull an FX rabbit out of the hat. I just don't think it's very likely. If you're waiting for a US$2000 FX camera, you only have one clear option: buy something used.
- D800E. I suspect demand for this is running higher than Nikon expected. Everything Nikon officials have said, plus the one month extra wait, all seem to indicate that they thought only a few would opt this way. Based upon talks with dealers and looking at what people say they did for preordering via my In Box, I'd say that at least a third of you are opting to go this route. My personal advice: unless you're primarily shooting something you know shouldn't be a big issue--basically landscapes--you shouldn't go this route. Shooting in and around cities and shooting people that aren't nude makes you susceptible to moire. Moreover, you're not likely to see it at capture time: you'd need to be constantly zooming the playback on the LCD to see it, and 36mp is a pretty big mess of pixels to try to examine closely on the 3.2" LCD. Simply put: removing moire is way harder than adding perceived acuity through sharpening. Way.
- D800. The D700 upgraders keep getting hung up on the sensor. They have very good high ISO results on a pixel basis with their current camera, and they anticipate that they'll get far worse results with three times the pixels. Well, yes, if you look only on a per-pixel basis, that might be true (we won't know for sure until cameras are available). But if you blew up a D700 image to 36mp the per pixel results wouldn't look so great, either. This is a tricky subject, but the net is the same as the D3/D3x debate once was: using all the pixels, I'd pick the D3x over the D3 up to about ISO 800, the D3 above that. Using only 12mp sizes, the crossover gets pushed higher (for me, ISO 1600, but for others they'll take ISO 3200 from a downsized D3x image). One thing people are forgetting is that the D800 sensor is at least two generations newer than the D700's. Sensors are getting better. I think people are going to be surprised by the D800 sensor, but again, we must await cameras to test to verify that.
- D700. At the moment, used D700s are running close to the price you can find one new (assuming you can even find one). As I wrote not too long ago, if you told me I could only have one camera, the D700 would be that choice. It produces high quality images, it's more compact than a D3 series body and thus more carryable in more situations, it has a solid, advanced feature set, and it's a workhorse. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a D700. A lot of you are expecting D700 used prices to plummet when the D800 hits. I'm not so sure. First, it's a damned good camera, and even US$2300 is enough different than US$3000 that the demand will stay high for D700s. Moreover, D800s are going to be in short supply for awhile, and there aren't that many D700's out there changing hands. No, I suspect the D700 will command at least D300s/D400 prices for the foreseeable future (currently it fetches more).
- D4. Here's another connundrum. Is the D4 better than the D3s? Again people get stuck on the sensor, though here the answer is already a little clearer. I'm slowly coming round to the position that I'll shoot my D4 exactly the same as I did my D3s. Same ISO limits and expectations. There are some small caveats in there, as I do think channel response has changed slightly, but all evidence I see so far points me towards considering a D4 as being a D3s with 4mp more. Is that enough to make you switch? I have strong doubts about that. Yes, it gives you a bit more cropping flexibility, but the primary D3/D3s users probably will consider the changes to the focus and metering systems as being more substantive for their work. Add in the video and live view changes, and there's a lot to like. Subtract out the new battery and hefty price, and there's a lot to keep you from upgrading quickly. Even more so than the D800, the D4 is going to be in very short supply for the forseeable future. Unless you're already in a high position in a queue, you have plenty of time to consider what you'll do about this camera if it's in your target list.
- D3x. Prior to last week, the D3x was the DSLR capable of producing the very best images at base ISO. This week, it might be number two. That's nothing to scoff at. It's a rock solid camera that produces exceptional results, even when pushed to some higher ISO values. I've shot wildlife with it at ISO 1600 and been pleased with the results. At ISO 800 and below it arguably holds its own against the other D3 models when you do apples-to-apples comparisons. I suspect we will eventually see prices drop on this camera on the used market, but not as fast or as far as most people are anticipating. #2 is still damned good, and landscapers who have it shouldn't be in a big hurry to drop this fine camera. Price is a component of supply and demand. Supply has always been low. Demand is still reasonably high. For the life of me, I still don't know why Nikon priced it so high in the first place, but it's more than paid for itself in my book. Over the long term, as the D800 becomes available off the shelf (and assuming it's as good as we expect), the D3x will see large drops in its used value. That doesn't mean it will be cheap.
- D3s. Still state of the art at high ISO values. Where the D3x dropped to #2 camera at something with the D800E intro, the D3s remains #1 (now tied) despite the D4 introduction. Yes, you can now get more pixels and better video and some nice tweaks in focus, exposure, and live view. But is that worth the upgrade price and hassle? I can't answer that, only you can (if you're in this position). The battery change didn't make the decision any easier, and it made it less likely that people want mixed D3/D4 bags. I expect D3s bodies to stay popular for some time, and command fairly high prices on the used market.
- D3. The D3 slipped to #2 at high ISO work when the D3s came out. You need to think of this camera in conjunction with the D700, as they use the same sensor and generate the same results. At the moment, if you look closely, you can pick up a used D3 for about US$800 more than a used D700 from the reputable sellers (e.g. KEH). For that US$800 you get a more solid body, the vertical grip, a bigger battery (by far), faster frame rates, a 100% viewfinder, and more. For a lot of you who decided that the used market is where you'll go to move up to FX, the D3 is a very tempting camera, and I think that's going to continue to be for some time.
- Wait. Hey, didn't I already cover that? Well, here the "wait" is about what's next in the D4 line. Will there be a D4s, a D4x, a D800 with the D4 sensor? Well, yes, probably yes to all of those. But not any time soon. Nikon has its hands full for 2012 just trying to build what they've announced. If you look at historical patterns, Nikon uses two-year refresh cycles on the high-end products (though the D700 appeared a year after the D3). So best case: D4 sensor in a D800 body in 2013, D4s/D4x in 2014. Worst case? D4s in 2014, no other FX models in the interim.
Thus, if you accept what I just wrote as being likely, and if you don't believe a D400 will be FX, then all your choices are laid out in front of you today and you should be able to make an intelligent choice just as soon as the initial image quality verifications start to hit.
We are indeed in a sweet spot for FX shooters. Maybe not sweet in terms of pricing, but certainly sweet in terms of our options. We have six different Nikon FX bodies, any one of which I'd be happy to shoot with for the next couple of years.
Nikon View NX2 Updated
Feb 15 (news)--View NX2 was updated to include support for the D800 cameras as well as provide full 64-bit support to both Windows and Macintosh versions. Other changes include the ability to send original files via email, set margins in the print function, and Save/Save As has been added to the File menu. Some bug fixes were made, as well.Now if we could only say the same for Message Center 2: "There are no updates available at this moment." I can't remember the last time that Message Center actually found an update before I did. You'd think it would be the other way around.
- Capture NX3. I have no solid idea about schedule for this or what it might comprise. If Nikon themselves are doing it, they're not known for being a quick software developer. We just got a 64-bit version of NX2, after all.
-
13 Feb ' 13:05
Wanna do some sailing?. Yes, it's been a long time since I've taught a workshop. One of my next ones will be on that 216' boat in the background (max 14 students), and we'll be shooting things like those lizards in the foreground. Yep, you guessed it: Galapagos. Don't have full particulars yet, but we're shooting for end of 2013, start of 2014. If you're interested, you really need to follow me on Twitter, because that's where I'll announce my next workshops when they open (I'm also closing in on details for two Africa workshops in summer 2013). However, you can also drop me an email saying you're interested, and I'll send details to those people when I know them. Oh, you wanted to know what the teaching point was? Depth. This shot was taken with a Nikon V1, which everyone will tell you has a small sensor and thus has too much depth of field. It does if you use it wrong, I suppose ;~). The thing I want you to note here is what your eyes do. They pull you to the marine iguana. In fact, if you're paying close attention, you'll note that your eyes almost try to do the same thing they'd do in real life: the muscles want to move to pull focus. That's one of the "depth signals" our brain interprets (eye muscles moving, object is closer/further), something called vergence. If you use hyperfocal distance to put everything in focus (e.g. lizard, boat, volcano in background), you totally destroy the pseudo-vergence cues. The image "feels" flat. Yes, our eyes don't actually start to cross looking at such pictures, but even just that little hint is enough to add depth to the image. Do we need the boat in focus? Not really. This image says "Thom's in the Galapagos and he got there on a 3-mast barquentine." Does the boat need to be in focus to know that it's a 3-mast barquentine? Nope. Indeed, those of us who've been to the Galapagos a few times could pretty much tell exactly which boat is in the background of any picture you take with one out of focus like this. There's plenty of information there, even with it being out of focus. Note also that you can't really stay looking at the boat. By putting focus into a tight plane I'm forcing you to look where I want you to; you eye is forced to the iguana. The result is even more dramatic if you crop the two sides a bit (I normally use a 16:9 crop for these teaching images, so I can't show you the image that is 3:2). By the way, that boat? Incredible. 16 passengers in a boat designed for 34, first class staff, food, kayaks, snorkeling gear, you name it. Those of you who worry about cruises after what happened in Italy: we do a safety drill immediately on board, have superb and extensive navigation and emergency equipment [EPIRB, SART, AIS, plus four rafts that can carry 90 passengers!], and the captain is one of the most careful I've met.
Corrections and Clarifications and CommentsFeb 12It's been a busy month, and I'm still trying to dig out and get everything cleaned up and some projects I've been working on finished. However, I slipped up on a few things, so let's correct them. Plus I didn't make clear enough explanations or comments on a few others. Here's my quick make-up session:
- Sendai. The D800 is indeed made in Sendai. That's what I originally wrote and asserted, but somewhere in the launch excitement I wrote Thailand (which was one of the main places where it was launched). Sendai is assembling both the D800 and D4, as expected. Capacity--at least for a single shift--seems to be about the same as in the D3/D700 era: 5k D4 units a month, 30k D800 units a month. To my knowledge, Nikon is only running one shift at Sendai at the moment.
- D800E. I haven't been perfectly clear on this: there is indeed a filter on the D800E, it's just not Nikon's traditional two-stage antialiasing filter. I've been having a hard time tracking down an absolute answer on what that D800E filter does. Rob Galbraith wrote that it blurs verically and then deblurs, while the non-E model blurs horizontallly and then blurs vertically. I've gotten conflicting answers out of Nikon sources, but I believe Galbraith is correct: the front stage of the filter on the D800E is part of an optical system in the filter itself.
- D800 versus D700. Do me a favor. Forget about the sensor. Pretend for a moment that they have the same exact sensor, but all the other features stay the same for each model. Which one do you want? Right. Thought so. The notion that the D800 isn't an upgrade for D700 users is mistaken. It is. Clearly it is (video, exposure, focus, new menu features, better Live View, etc.). Most of the complaints are about two things: (1) pixel-level noise likelihood at high ISO values; and (2) file size. I can't do anything about #2 (though see next point). I'd also say it's premature to make conclusions about #1. We went through this same thing with the D3 versus D3x, though there the controversy centered on the cost differential for reduced pixel-level integrity at high-ISO values.
- D800 "sizes". A lot of people seem confused by "size" versus "crop." The D800 supports Large, Medium, and Small sizes for JPEG and TIFF. It supports 1.2x and DX (1.5x) crops for NEF, JPEG, and TIFF. Can you shoot an image that stores in a smaller number of MBs? Sure. With JPEG and TIFF pick the smaller sizes, which downsample from the full frame. With NEF, it's trickier: you can pick a smaller frame crop to get smaller sized files, but you're also cropping from the full sensor, not downsampling.
- Lenses. Everyone seems to want a list of "D800-approved" lenses. There will never be such a thing. Absolutely nothing has changed from my Rationalizing Lenses article just because someone sprinkled in a few more megapixels. A good lens is still a good lens. A poor lens is still a poor lens.
- D4 Delivery date. I had heard in an interview with a Nikon executive last week that the D4 delivery date was being moved, but didn't report it at the time (call it a senior moment). I've now heard three different reasons for the delay from three different sources, but I don't think the reason is important. The net is that deliveries will start in mid-March instead of mid-February. Disappointing, yes. But Nikon doesn't make such delays unless they discovered something that is better dealt with before the camera ships. I trust that they're trying to make our initial D4 experiences top grade.
- WiFi. It appears the D800 can't use the new WT-5 transceiver. This has caused a lot of whining. But there's a simple solution: use an Eye-Fi card, which the D800 supports. It's actually a cheaper and simpler solution. But transferring 75MB raw files isn't going to be fun over WiFi no matter how you do it, especially if you're shooting continuously.
- Lenses. Conspicuously absent so far in 2012 are lens announcements. One with the D4, none with the D800. I'm sure we'll get some when the D400 and other stuff rolls later this year, but I'm now very, very worried that Nikon doesn't understand lenses. Still not much in the way of DX wide angle options (two zooms). Still missing in action updates (notably 80-400mm, but there are more). But here's the big one that shows that Nikon doesn't get it: no lenses ready for video. If the D4/D800 are such great video cameras, does Nikon really expect us to use them with contrast AF? Where are the geared focus rings? Yes, I know that I can buy plenty of add-on choices here, some of which are okay. But Nikon isn't driving the car here, they're assuming we'll get there on our own. When you abdicate like that, you'd better watch out: the user may drive somewhere else. For example, I find my Zeiss lenses more suitable to third-party modification for video, not my Nikkors. Oops.
The Show's OverFeb 12commentary)--With PMA, CES, and CP+ out of the way, the big shows where companies want to make a splash are out of the way until Photokina this fall. So the question is this: what get announced? In no particular order:
- Canon DSLRs. The 5DIII, in particular, is noticeably missing from the launch frenzy. I suspect that they were trying to steer clear of Nikon's D800 announcement. It'll come soon enough.
- Nikon lenses. Did the quake really disrupt glass this much? We've had three lenses in 17 months, where Nikon's average would tend to imply we should have had nine. (I don't count the Nikon 1 lenses because they're made in China, not the main Nikon glass plant.) Beyond the fact that Nikon isn't pushing out lenses, it also isn't filling in absolutely necessary gaps in their lens lineup. Of the last 10 lenses, we got six modest refreshes and two consumer superzooms. Nikon isn't even at parity with Canon on speciality lenses, but the m4/3 crowd is proving just how bad Nikon's judgment is for DX: no 24mm equivalent, no 85mm portrait equivalent, and more missing options.
- D400. It's coming. Best guess? April announce, May ship. Even that's cutting it awful close to the D4/D800 launches. Nikon's going to be scrambling early this year to get everything that was delayed launched with some appropriate noise and efficiency.
- Canon mirrorless. The G1X is an interesting stop gap, but it doesn't completely plug the hole. Moreover, it won't be counted when market shares are determined in the interchangeable lens category, which could be problematic to the way people perceive Canon. They've owned interchangeable lens cameras for a long time, with a near 50% share. This is a moment of weakness for them, and others will pounce on it.
- Sony ship announcement. I was surprised that Sony didn't try to make a big deal at CP+ to re-launch the A77 and NEX-7, which got lost in the Thailand floods. They should have re-announced them and how shipping will unfold.
- Leica. Not surprisingly, as a European company they'll wait until Photokina for their big news.
- Panasonic GH3. It's coming, but not for awhile yet. Panasonic was reasonably quiet for a show on their home turf when they just had a very successful year in country. Pre-announced lenses under glass isn't a very effective presentation, IMHO.
- Samsung. The NX11 replacement is still MIA. But given Samsung's low sales numbers for their mirrorless camera (120,000 a year), I understand. Something's not quite right (marketing and sales, IMHO), and they need to fix that, not iterate a bunch of products.
Right now we're in delivery time. Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax all have important already announced products they now need to get into consumers' hands. Think of it as waves. We've had the first wave of announcements for the year and those products will be washing up on our shores shortly. Another wave comes probably in April, another in July/August, and because of Photokina, one last wave in fall.
Camera Control Pro 2.10.0Feb 12With the D4 out in the field in a few hands and nearing release, Camera Control Pro was updated to support it. Movie gets its own camera function tab, too. For Mac users, Lion (10.7) is now officially supported.
Meanwhile, Nikon has also added D4 support to the NEF Codec for Windows, now at version 1.13.0.
Yes, I'm AwareFeb 12A few of you have been asking why I haven't commented on a couple of topics recently. For example, the halting of parts sales to independent repair stations or the strangely high price of the MB-D12 grip for the D800 (especially if you want faster frame rates and thus need the D4 battery).
Sometimes there are other things I'm working on where commenting about a topic makes more sense when I complete those articles.
-
09 Feb ' 13:36
Last update: 9 Feb 2012
How Good is the Q, II?
Feb 9 (commentary)--Still not my words. But I love it when I get engineers talking ;~):- diffraction limited spot size = 2.44 * wavelength * fno
Which means Q = spot size / (2.44 * pixel pitch)
If spot size = 2.44 times pixel pitch, Q=1.
For the D800E, there will be a steady loss of resolution above f/8.9
You Knew I Was Going to Say Something
Feb 9 (commentary)--Kodak's disclosure today that they were getting out of the camera and digital frame business seems like a shock, but it isn't. Most of us had predicted that for some time now. I believe I first wrote that the end was inevitable for Kodak cameras when they bought Chinon a number of years ago. I'm a little surprised it took this long to close the door.I believe Kodak's management is more clueless today than it was at the end of the film era when it needed to transition to digital. Paper printing and print kiosks are where they're putting the last stake in the ground. I'm not even sure they'll get that stake fully secured before the steam roller hits it.
The future of displaying images isn't on paper. The print kiosk business is slowly dying, so being a big player there is just another dinosaur business and delays the inevitable. Two technologies are pushing forward for display of images: LCDs (dynamic) and E-Ink (static). Kodak has almost no skin in either game. The skin they did have--digital frames (LCDs in frames)--wasn't very much to start with, but now it's gone.
The future for images is clearly cloud-stored, wireless displayed on whatever device screen you desire. It is not "print it on paper."
Note that I'm not saying that paper will go away any time soon. Just as the US Postal Service hasn't gone away because of email, paper will stick around for quite some time. The problem is the same one as the USPS has, though: the primary driver of volume and profit (letters for mail, prints for photos) is moving to a new medium (email for mail, displays for photos). These kinds of transitions tend to leave a smaller, less profitable, and non-growing market behind. But that's exactly where Kodak just placed its bets: on smaller, less profitable, and slow-or-no-growth markets. Meanwhile, they couldn't wean themselves off the high profit margins in film, even as that market dramatically shrinks, so they kept that bit of the company.
Kodak is now on Death Watch, AFAIC. To win in printers, they have to beat HP, Lexmark, Epson, Brother, and Canon, who will all definitely fight hard to protect their territory. Worldwide, those companies were about 85% of the printer market in 2010, and year-to-year growth is modest (maybe 15%). This is no different than the challenge in cameras: there you have to beat Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Sony, Samsung, Olympus, and others that hold more than 80% of the market, and the year-to-year growth is non-existent. I don't see a lot of difference in the market Kodak chose to exit versus the one it choose to stay in.
Kodak's strategy seems to be "we were too late with the right things for the game in market 1, let's see if that's true in market 2" (it is) and "Keep the things that still have higher profit margins and hold on as long as we can" (which probably won't be long).
Kodak's best business still in the fold is the higher-end commercial printing business, but it's not a big enough business for anything like the old Kodak to survive. Indeed, last year Kodak was projecting something near US$6b in business in 2011 (they're not going to make it). Their projection for the core businesses they now plan to keep was US$2b in 2013 (not clear they'll make that). In the 9-month year-to-year results for 2010 and 2011, we find that they've slipped 18% in sales but increased 2% in cost of sales. That's before we get to all the corporate stuff like admin, R&D, restructuring, etc.
The best case I see is a Kodak that's less than one-third its size at the start of last year, that's not overly profitable, has only modest growth, and will have to use patent sale revenue to pay back the debtor-in-bankruptcy and restructuring charges.
Short story: Kodak never solved its management decisionmaking problems. It's still making them.
- diffraction limited spot size = 2.44 * wavelength * fno
Which means Q = spot size / (2.44 * pixel pitch)
-
08 Feb ' 13:45
Last update: 8 Feb 2012
How Good is the Q?
Feb 8 (commentary)--I'm going to let someone else do the talking:"I’ve spent the past 45 years involved in the analysis and design trades of spaceborne imaging systems (like the earth viewing Geoeye-1 telescope in orbit today), and Q is a wonderful, insightful and useful parameter. Q can be shown to be equal to wavelength x fno / pixel pitch. If we ignore the use of Bayer filtered pixels and do the calculation on a monochromatic basis (without a de-aliasing filter), for a Q=2 D800E (fully satisfying the Nyquist criterion at 0.55 microns), the fno turns out to be f/17.7. Thus an f/8.9 lens aperture setting on the D800E gives you a Q=1 system, which makes the D800E equivalent from a sampling standpoint to the Geoeye-1 telescope (which has a Q=0.95). In fact, many spaceborne imagers are about Q=1, which has turned out over the years to be a good compromise between resolution (NIIRS, if you are familiar with the government image quality measure) and low light performance (i.e. , SNR). And it’s interesting to note that the use of a lens set at f/8 (often the aperture that delivers the best quality image – i.e., best MTF) dovetails nicely with the achievement of a Q=1 D800E imaging camera. So one could consider theD800E, at f/8, to be a miniature Geoeye-1 telescopic camera. The D800E has hit the traditional sweet spot for earth imaging satellite systems!"
- filter than the D800, one without an anti-aliasing component. As to why it is more expensive, that's going to be an embarrassment to Nikon, I think: they predicted they'd make far fewer D800E's than D800's, thus it would cost them more (both in parts and in all the things associated with an item sold in lower quantities, e.g. inventory costs). I predict they'll be wrong. Completely wrong. Of course, Nikon gets the last word here, because they can't make more D800E's than they order parts for ;~). That leads me to a prediction: the D800E will be a constant sell-out.
to do that. They were forced to, first with the quake in Sendai, then with the floods in Thailand. Both plants have had a floor to ceiling redo. Both plants were closed without warning for at least a month. Both plants got new equipment, and not little things like screwdrivers and shelving, but big things like machines that make complex camera parts or do intricate alignments. It's an impressive accomplishment and should be heralded. How many multi-billion dollar companies do you know that lose their entire production capacity to disaster yet still manage to increase sales and operating profits in that year? Any? Bueller?
Search the Site
