Archive for May, 2009
Got it covered…
Posted by Mark Duehmig in Everything on May 31st, 2009
I am honored to announce that one of my photos is gracing the cover of one of my favorite magazines, Spinsheet.
I’ve written in this space before that I am a real fan of this magazine. It maintains a true Corinthian spirit to taking to the water. Everyone belongs on the Chesapeake Bay and this magazine celebrates that. And I’m proud to be part of it.
Cover of Spinsheet Magazine
I did some traveling this month so I didn’t get to haunt the boat yards and docks like I wanted, looking for photos of opportunity. But one Sunday morning my daughter and I had gone out for a drive and she fell asleep in the back. As we crossed the Eastport drawbridge I saw a line of boats tied up and a sole figure working on them in the rain. I circled back and had a look.
The boats are part of the CRAB fleet. That’s Chesapeake Regional Accessible Boating. This wonderful organization has boats equipped to make sailing possible or easier for people with disabilities. Again, helping get everyone out on the water.
I had my cameras with me* and I stepped out into the rain and shot off a handful of photos. My gear was getting wet, but then again, taking pictures is why I have it. And both the gear and me would dry.
There are a handful of elements that make this photo work. I wanted a short focus so I dialed the aperture to the max opening of 2.8 on my Nikon 70-200 lens. There was too much busyness on the other side of the creek that would distract from the foreground subjects. There is also an interesting reflection on the wet docks. But I think the boat’s name, Steamed, next to the CRAB logo was also an important draw.
So, I’ll thumbtack this up on my wall of my studio and smile when I look at it. It means a lot more than some anonymous magazine I don’t care about. I’m still waiting for that National Geographic assignment, but until then, I’ll try for next month’s Spinsheet cover…
Mark
www.MarkDuehmig.com
*You should always have a camera with you. (http://blog.markduehmig.com/index.php/archives/55)
Not all lenses are created equal
Posted by Mark Duehmig in Everything on May 27th, 2009
I’ll begin this entry by saying I am writing it without coffee. I went through the drive-through this morning and forgot to order coffee. Now this shouldn’t be a big deal, but my daughter has fallen asleep in the back seat, and this much-needed nap will help her get though pre-school today, so I’m going to just sit here and write this… without coffee.
OK, so you’ve got a nice camera, likely with the “kit” lens that came with it, and you’ve decided that one of the first things you want is another lens. Either really wide or really long- something to compliment the mid-range workhorse that came with your camera. But when you look at the prices from the camera stores, you are shocked and confused at the wide range of prices for some lenses. Why the big differences?
A couple of reasons, but first, lets make sure we’re comparing apples to apples. When you see prices on line, or in the back of magazines, beware the unscrupulous sellers. Some will, at best, bate-and-switch you or sell you gray market stuff. At worse, you’ll end up with junk and without your money. I have experience with both, as those prices can be tempting and my spirit was weak. But please, take my word for it; there are only a few places to trust: B& H, Adorama & Abes of Maine. Hopefully your first choice is your local camera store. We need to keep those in business so we have a place to go and touch and feel our goods before we buy them without flying to New York. But I digress…
There are two big differences in lenses that affect their price; construction materials and the speed of the lenses.
The kit lenses that often ship with DSLRs are a good example of materials. The lenses are probably a high quality plastic such as fluorite. This isn’t bad as it does a great job and is lighter than glass. But, it isn’t as perfect as glass.
Even with glass lenses there are different qualities. Ground glass vs. cut glass and even composite glass, are all options for making lenses. The most expensive lenses are made from high quality glass blanks that are ground down to their final shape. The difference in quality is definitely that last 5-10%. Lens technology is such that the kit lens sold today with a camera is superior to a great lens just a few years ago.
The other, more important factor, is how fast the lens is. When I mention the speed of a lens, I’m talking about the smallest f-stop that a particular lens can be set to. The f-stop is a ratio between the focal length of a lens and the opening of the lens. The focal length is the number most people are familiar with; “I just bought a 200 mm lens.” 200mm is the focal length.
But an important factor with that focal length is the size of opening on the lens that lets light in. Comparing the two gives you a minimum “f-stop.” For example, if I had a 100 mm lens with a 50 mm opening on the front, I’d have an f 2 lens. (100/50=2). The smaller the front opening, the bigger this number becomes. A 100 mm lens with a 25mm opening is an f 4 lens. An lens is rated by its smallest f-stop.
It isn’t hard for a lens manufacturer to increase the focal length of a lens, just separate the glass elements further. What costs money is increasing the size of that front piece of glass (and most other inside too.) You can guess that time and materials increase greatly between a 25mm wide piece of glass and a 75 mm wide piece of glass.
So why do you care how big the front lens is or how fast lens is? If a 200 mm f 5.6 lens has the same magnification as a 200 mm f 2.8 lens, why not go photograph birds with the cheaper, and lighter, lens?
The difference is light gathering power. A lens with a bigger opening lets more light in. The results are brighter, crisper photographs and much faster shutter speed. Have a look at the sidelines at a pro football game. The photojournalists all have big lenses with HUGE front lenses. Those are 500 mm and bigger lenses that open up to f 2.8. They cost big bucks. (And don’t get lens envy, most of the photogs rent them.) But to stop action with fast shudder speeds and get crisp images, you need to let a lot of light in.
There is one other big benefit to a fast lens; depth of field. This is a whole posting in itself, but the f-stop you’ve got your lens set to determines how much of your image will be in focus. If you’re on the edge of the Grand Canyon and want everything from the rock in front of you to the distant river to be in focus, you close down your aperture to a small opening, which changes your f-stop. If there is enough light, you might choose f 22. If there isn’t enough light, use a tripod for that long exposure. Everything will be in focus.
But if you’re taking photos of your daughter blowing the seeds from a dandelion, you want all the attention just on her. So you stop down to f 2.8 if you can, and only what you focus on will be sharp. Everything else will be soft and unimportant.
Most “kit” lenses are listed around f 4.5-5.6. This means that zoomed out, they can open up to about f 4.5. And zoomed in they’ll have a minimum f stop of 5.6. These will give you good general photographs, but won’t allow you the option of a short depth of field.
So that is the 10,000 foot view of lenses. When you open your camera catalog, you’ll see the wide range of lenses and prices. The difference between a $200 and a $1600 lens is that last 10% of quality and flexibility when composing a photo. Is the difference worth about $1400-1500? That is up to you.
I’ve always given the advice that pretty much all DSLR cameras now are fantastic. With cameras, like lenses, you’re paying for that last 10%. But lenses will outlast cameras. The glass is where you’ll see that last 10% for many more years. If you can afford it, buy a cheaper camera body and put your money in the glass. When you wear out your camera you upgrade the body and keep using those wonderful lenses.
But isn’t it nice to know that even if you are using the cheapest digital gear out there, you can still have great photos? It all comes down to you and when you push that button. The Moment. So whatever you have in your camera bag, get out there and…
Keep shooting,
Mark
www.MarkDuehmig.com
A short treatise on long lenses
Posted by Mark Duehmig in Everything on May 27th, 2009
My friend from New Zealand read my posting on photographing people out on the surf and thought using a long lens from shore might be the best option. So, he asked, what should he consider when buying a long lens?
I have a blog posting all written up that I haven’t posted yet on how to choose lenses in general- and why some are so much more expensive than others with similar specs. I’ll put up that post shortly as it will be useful for this topic. But here are some points specifically for “long” lenses.
A long lens refers to great magnification and is measured by its focal length in millimeters. So a 200 mm lens is longer than a 50 mm lens. So the longer lens you get, the more you can “zoom in.” That’s the basics and you probably know all that.
As you’ll hopefully read in my next post, not all lenses are created equally. I’ll come back to this.
In this case, Paul is rightfully concerned about “lens shake.” The more you are zoomed in, the more your camera movement is visible. There are three ways to deal with this.
First: use a tripod or monopod. Either is good and has advantages. A tripod has more stability but is less easy to adjust on the run. And is heavier. Oh, you can buy carbon fiber, but look at the prices first…. A monopod might be good for this situation but you have to double check for straight horizons. Plant the camera, take a deep breath and compose the shot.
Second, pay a little extra for image stabilization. One of the best lenses I have is the Nikon 70-200mm lens with image stabilization. This lens has built in compensation for small movements and can help reduce shake a lot, especially in low light situations with slow shutter speed.
Third, pay for a “fast” lens. Remember where I said not all lenses are created equal? A fast lens refers to the “f stop” of a lens and is a ratio between the focal length of a lens and the size of the opening of the lens. In short, how big is that piece of glass in front? The bigger the opening, the more light that is let in and the brighter the image. The more light, the faster the shutter speed and camera movement is less of a factor. The smaller the f number, such as 2.8, the faster and brighter the lens.
You’ll notice that solutions two and three start with “pay extra.” Image stabilization isn’t too bad nowadays, but big, bright glass is expensive. My Nikon 70-200 lens with image stabilization is a fast f2.8 throughout its focal length but it cost about $1700. That’s more than 3x as much as a D40 camera with a standard lens. On the other hand, you can get a Nikon 70-300mm lens that is a bit slower at f/4-5.6 (This means it is f4 when at its widest point, and f5.6 when zoomed in) for about $160 US from B&H Photo. And that has image-stabilization built in to it! (Nikon calls it VR for vibration reduction.) So is that extra bright glass worth about $1500? That is up to you to decide. If you’re going to do this for a living, you’ll want the good glass. If you are shooting casually, go for the slower lens and shoot on bight, sunny days. And use a tripod.
One other big lens option when you need a LOT of magnification and just don’t have the pocketbook for really big glass (a Nikon 500mm f4 lens is $8500) you might use a mirror/lens. Technically a mirror/lens is designed like a Schmidt-Cassegrain reflector telescope and uses a big mirror to collect the light, rather than a lens. It is much easier to make a big mirror than it is a perfect piece of glass. So a 500mm mirror/lens is about $120 or so, and an 800mm mirror/lens is less than $250.
Naturally, there is a downside. First, most of these mirror/lenses are a slow f8. I’ve used these and actually notice the image is a bit dim. Second, they are all manual. No autofocus or other fancy 3-D metering blah blah. You put it on your camera and focus it and keep it focused while you take a picture. But, when it comes to high magnification at a reasonable price, these are it.
That is about all I can think of to help you decide about long lenses. If the price tag of a fast lens didn’t scare you, read my upcoming post on what makes a good lens good.
Thanks for reading,
Mark
www.MarkDuehmig.com
Shooting with a splash
Posted by Mark Duehmig in Everything on May 21st, 2009
A friend of mine from New Zealand sent me a note saying he is working on a website dedicated to Stand Up Paddle Surfing. How cool is that? My first guess was that paddle surfing was similar to cross-country skiing; still skiing even when there aren’t hills nearby. Nope, when I saw the website, I saw it is big Pacific Ocean waves and serious surfing. Have a look. If you’re an adventurer, it might be for you.
http://www.standuppaddlekiwi.com
But he wants to be able to take pictures in a really wet environment and he asked if I had any suggestions. Indeed I do.
There are several options to dealing with this wonderful liquid. To determine which path we’ll take, we need to know the whole range of photographic needs and decide if they extend beyond water photography. Some questions we might ask are; Are water photographs all we really need to take pictures of or are these a small percentage of the overall use of the camera? Is it a one-time shoot or will we be frequently updating our wet-shots? Is the camera likely to get damp, wet, dunked or submerged? Any actual under-water photography in the plans?
Lets go the easier route; if using the camera for these water photographs is an infrequent or one-time use, consider renting your equipment. There are lots of places that will rent waterproof gear to you, even if they have to ship it to you. It won’t be cheap, but it will be much less than if you bought equipment that will sit on a shelf.
On the other extreme, if you want to do some diving with your equipment and water photography is in your indefinite future, then you’ll need some specialized gear. For example Nikonos is the Nikon line of submersible camera equipment. Any of it will be suitable for getting in waves and getting water all over everything. (But keep in mind that if you envision diving to photograph colorful reefs, the name of the game is light. You’ll need to be able to use a big external flash, or flashes, to get your photos.)
Most people, and I think my friend Paul is in this group, need something in the middle.
Fortunately, there are several cameras that are designed for the task, mostly in point-and-shoots, but there is an option in D-SLRs too.
For point and shoot cameras, Olympus has a waterproof and shockproof Stylus 720SW. There is also the Pentax Optio W10 and the Vivitar VIVICAM-6200W. (Since you have a choice of several waterproof cameras to choose from, make sure you compare features like what depth it is waterproof to, and how long it can stay there. Is it meant to just survive a dunking or really go swimming?)
The only choice in the D-SLR line that comes close to wetness protection is the Pentax K10D. And this is weatherproof. Not waterproof. So why do I mention it here? Well if rain is what you’re fighting, or if you’re following a surfer in a boat or jet ski with spray and splash, it might be a good choice for you. Especially if you want to work with long lenses and work with manual functions.
There is another choice for people working with sports in a very wet environment, (like surfing); the Sanyo Xacti video camera. I own one of these and when I raced my Tartan 34 sailboat to Bermuda last year, I left it in the cockpit through waves and rain so I capture whatever happened without trashing my best gear. AND it takes 8 megapixel still images. And it can take those still images while recording video.
It really is an amazing camera, but there are two big downsides to it; first, it records video in standard definition (640 x 480) not high definition. (I think there is a PAL version available.) Standard Def is no problem for the web, but if you put the video up on your new 72 inch plasma HDTV, it won’t look as good as you might imagine. (Sanyo makes an HD version of this camera that is not waterproof at the time of this writing, so don’t get confused and buy the wrong one.) Second down side; the still photos are ok, but not great; middle-range point and shoot quality. But if you want waterproof (up to 6′ I think) video and still images at a reasonable price (about $220 US) there really isn’t anything else that I’ve seen.
A good balance to really protect your stuff, especially if you already own some camera gear is to go with a protective housing. There are quite a few to choose from, depending on how much protection you need and features like connecting external flashes. Some are just sealed bags that are custom fit to certain cameras and others are small submarines. The prices vary widely so take an antacid before you go shopping. Ewa-Marine is a well known name in camera housings.
So what do I think? If there is any need for video, that Sanyo is hard to beat.
Really want to use your expensive D-SLR camera but don’t like the prices of the waterproof housing? Save your money and buy a really long, really fast lens and shoot from shore.
If still images are all you need, a waterproof and shockproof point-and-shoot camera is probably your best bet. Very good quality and usable with one hand. (Very important when shooting a guy paddle surfing 20 feet away from you, and you’re both about to get crushed by a cresting monster wave.)
So don’t forget to put the wrist strap on, and keep shooting!
Mark
www.MarkDuehmig.com
The benefits of keeping your camera with you
Posted by Mark Duehmig in Everything, Focus on May 18th, 2009
I’ve mentioned before that a camera doesn’t do any good sitting in the camera bag, sitting at home. I try to carry my camera all the time, and when that isn’t possible, I’ve got a small Sony point-and-shoot that I’ll stick in my pocket.
Last week I was able to pull over to the side of the road, on a bridge, and get a few shots of a schooner sailing by.
The schooner Woodwind sails by under the Severn River bridge last week.
The bow of the schooner Woodwind cleanly cuts the water of the Severn River.
But I wouldn’t have anything but regrets if I’d seen the boat and I just had to watch it go by.
Mark
www.MarkDuehmig.com
A Classic Cartoonist
Posted by Mark Duehmig in Everything, Focus on May 14th, 2009
I’m not afraid to tell people about something good I’ve found if I think they’ll benefit from it. It doesn’t matter what it is. Even an artist.
A few months ago I got the chance to help cartoonist Jim Hunt pull some video off a DVD and quickly learned he is a good guy. The video was of a Boston Red Sox game where some of his drawings of players were shown on TV. (Don’t ask me, some people just like the Red Sox. He’s still a good guy.) And later he had some video of himself sitting in the stands, a few feet behind home plate, holding the radar guy that measures the ball speed for the TV stats. Obviously a friend of the team.
Through all this I got to see his cartoons. He isn’t just the guy who did the menus at my favorite restaurant here in Annapolis, he does all sorts of creative stuff. I strongly recommend you check out his website and see for yourself. You will probably even recognize his hand from editorial cartoons, town maps, book illustrations, logos… you get the point.
http://www.acartoonist.com/
This isn’t an advertisement. It is a recommendation. I haven’t stooped to advertisements yet.
You won’t be disappointed.
Mark
www.MarkDuehmig.com
Traveling with memory cards
Posted by Mark Duehmig in Everything, Focus on May 14th, 2009
As with film, everyone asked about going through airport security with digital cameras and whether the x-ray machine will hurt the data stored on the cards. And we were all told our stuff was safe.
BUT putting memory cards in your checked luggage is very risky. According to Nikon reps teaching a class a few weeks ago, the scanners used on checked luggage are stronger than the ones used with carry-on luggage. They can damage the cards and destroy or corrupt digital content.
So always carry your memory cards with you and…
Keep shooting,
Mark
www.MarkDuehmig.com
Which camera is best for you?
Posted by Mark Duehmig in Everything, Focus on May 8th, 2009
I’ll say right up front that I can’t tell you the answer to this question, but, I can give you some directions to look.
Point and Shoot vs. a Digital-SLR
Let’s do a big separation here. Do you just want good pictures of the family? Something to grab those irresistible looks on your daughter’s face? Don’t know or care about f-stops? My friend, YOU are a candidate for any of the many excellent point and shoot cameras out there. And the good thing here is that they all take EXCELLENT photos. The only things to consider are features. But that is another post.
Or, did you have a film SLR and loved taking photos a few years ago but never made the leap to digital? You loved your Tri-X black and white film and remember the good old days when you took that dark room class in college. (Oh, the nasty chemicals we used to just pour down the drain!) You have an interest in taking photography to the next level? Being more creative? Then maybe a D-SLR is for you.
(One other note, these two cameras are not mutually exclusive. I have a LOT of camera gear. But I just bought a little point and shoot from Canon and I love it. Why? A few weeks ago my 10-month-old daughter was in a pink dress and the cat walked into the room. She lit up with a wonderful smile and all my camera gear was packed safely away in camera bags elsewhere. So I pulled out my iPhone and took a picture that is now my wife’s favorite. It is a grainy, 1 megapixel image that I can’t look at without wishing I had taken it with a camera instead of a phone. So now I always have a camera with me.)
Leaning toward a D-SLR
Ok, so you want to make the jump to a digital single lens reflex camera (D-SLR.) Here is the good part: the entry-level D-SLR cameras from either Nikon or Canon are excellent choices. You get a lot of camera for your money. At the time of this writing, for the Nikon, it is the D40. For Canon, it is the Rebel. You can spend more money, but I’m not sure why unless you really want some of those extra features. The 80/20 rule works here: you are getting 80% of the features with these cameras. You’ll really have to spend a lot more to get that remaining 20%.
Not convinced the low-end cameras are the way to go? Here is another idea; buy the lower end camera bodies and spend that extra cash you have on good lenses. Camera bodies will come and go, but good glass will stay with you year after year. But brace yourself; good lenses can cost three times as much as your camera.
Can I use the lenses from my film camera with my digital SLR? Answer: Maybe. With Nikon, yes. (As with both Nikon and Canon, because of the small size of the sensor, you multiply the lens focal length by 1.5. So if you put a 50mm lens on a DX camera, [Nikon D40 through the D300 or the Canon Rebels or 50D] the result will be the same as if you put on a 75mm lens. If you buy an FX body [Nikon D3 or D700 or Canon 1D or 5D] the lens will act normally. A really old lens may lack some of the metering functions, but will still work.)
Canon lenses, probably won’t work. They have been much more anxious to incorporate the latest technology, even if that means making a lens for a specific camera line.
Last comment on old lenses; before you pull that old manual focus, 7 lb zoom out of the shoebox in the closet, keep in mind that new lenses are vastly superior in performance to the old lenses. Design, coatings, etc, combine to give you a great lens. Even the “kit” lens that comes with the camera.
Finally…
One final thought about choosing a camera; you may be excited about taking creative photos with a D-SLR, but a camera that gets left at home is worthless. If you get a D-SLR, buy a small bag that is easy to grab on your way out the door. Get in the habit of taking it with you or you might as well have bought a shirt-pocket sized point and shoot.
Keep shooting,
Mark
www.MarkDuehmig.com
So you’re a professional photographer…..
Posted by Mark Duehmig in Everything, Focus on May 8th, 2009
I wonder if, in certain professions, the same questions appear over and over. The way a sore elbow is asked about when someone says “Actually I’m a doctor…”.
For me, the question is, “So what camera do you use?”
There are a lot of reasons people ask me this, but I think the biggest is that a lot of people are constantly shopping for a camera, but never buy one because the choices out there are overwhelming. SLR or point and shoot? Canon or Nikon? Which lenses do I get? How much memory? What is a megapixel?
I’m guessing some people think if they ask a professional photographer what camera they use, that might be a magic bullet. If she uses a X900, I’ll get an X900, or maybe an X900 JR.
When I answer the question I loose half my audience right off the bat; because if I say Nikon and the person asking is a Canon user, then never mind. And visa-versa. It seems a person’s preference in one of these two major manufacturers is stronger than politics or Mac vs. PC, and maybe a little more ingrained than religion. (There are other manufacturers out there of course, just as there are always cults out on the fringe. But we don’t want these people taking our picture and we certainly don’t want to ask them about cameras. )
We almost expect to hear a knock on our door, and two well dressed young men saying “Good morning, we’d like to talk to you about Pentax….” Slam the door!
I’ll get it out in the open right now. I use Nikon D700s. I’m guessing some people are saying “Hmm. Too expensive for my tastes.” And others are saying “Hmm, wonder why he doesn’t use the D3? Or the new D3x?”
Here is my answer to both. (Canon users and the rest of you, be patient. Much of this applies no matter what brand you use.) First, the D700 is a “full frame” camera, meaning it has a much larger imaging sensor than “DX” cameras do. By full fame, I mean the sensor is the same size as a piece of 35mm film. There is nothing magical about this size. It is, in fact, an arbitrary size in the digital world, but it is now a standard for larger sensor sizes. So to me, the $3000 price tag for each camera body is worth it.
Why not the D3, Nikon’s top of the line? If I shot sports, or something else that required the D3’s incredibly fast frame rate, I would. But I don’t and I am too hard on cameras to spend an extra $2000 on features I don’t use. I was in Cameroon waiting for a plane full of medical supplies to arrive when my camera rolled off a small ledge and broke the whole lens mount off the frame of the camera. (That my 70-200 lens wasn’t broken was a true miracle.) Fortunately I was with a group of doctors, including an optometrist, who had a nice tool kit and some superglue for fixing glasses. The camera made it through that trip, but if I’m going to trash camera bodies, I need a good reason for that to be a $5000 loss instead of a $3000 loss.
In the near future, there may be a technology gap between the very highest cameras and the D700s that warrant the extra price tag. But right now there isn’t.
For you Canon users, let me say I almost put my whole Nikon collection up on EBay not long ago to make the jump. The release and incredible performance of the D700 stopped me at the last minute.
I, like many of you, stuck with Nikon in the jump to digital because I shot with Nikon film cameras. But truthfully, until Nikon released the D3 and the D700, Canon had it all over Nikon in the digital world. The playing field is now about even. For most things, I’d prefer Nikon. If I was suddenly thrust into the world of fashion photography, I’d probably jump to Canon.
When shopping, make sure you compare FX cameras to FX cameras and DX cameras to DX cameras. There is quiet a price jump between the two.
Next time: which camera is best for you?
Keep shooting,
Mark
www.MarkDuehmig.com