about · gallery · print sales · technical · links
technical
Nikon and Hasselblad
For the curious the two systems I mainly use are a Nikon film and digital setup and a Hasselblad V series 6x6 medium format kit - the latter mostly used for black and white negative work that I am increasingly fond of.
As of December 2007 I switched to the new Nikon D3 from the D2Xs and as a backup digital camera I also have a D700 and I still have my two F6s which see a lot of use (see below). The lenses I regularly use are:
17-35mm f/2.8D ED AF-S Nikkor
24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor
80-200mm f/2.8D ED Nikkor
24mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor
35mm f/2D AF Nikkor
50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor
Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZF
60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor
300mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor (with Kirk tripod collar)
TC-14E II Teleconverter
The Hasselblad V series kit consists of two 501CM bodies which I use with the superlative Pentax Digital Spotmeter. The lenses that I use are:
40mm f4 Distagon CFE FLE
50mm f4 Distagon CF FLE
80mm f2.8 Planar CFE
150mm f4 Sonnar CF
250mm f5.6 Sonnar CF
I perch this lot on top of a Gitzo 3540XLS carbon tripod with the impressive Kirk BH-1 ball head.
In terms of film I was an avid user of Agfa APX 100 black and white negative film until its demise and have now transferred my affections to Ilford Pan-F and FP4 as well as XP2 Super from time to time. I remain a resolute fan of Fuji Velvia 50 and I am happy to see it back in the shops although I was quite content using Velvia 100 in its absence.
Last but not least I scan my medium format and 35mm negatives and slides on a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED film scanner with the FH-869G glass holder. With medium format this produces grain sharp scans that noticeably exceed any DSLR I have used or owned to date. Although I have a preference for using medium format in many instances the locations and conditions I shoot in preclude its use. Ever tried loading film in an Icelandic gale? Most unamusing believe me!
70-200mm hopelessly bad as a landscape lens on full frame
Just as an update to my comments below about the D3 and the 70-200mm VR my lens has been to Nikon UK twice now for adjustment but essentially the corner performance of the lens, even when stopped down to f8, is very bad.
I thought that sample variation accounted for the bad performance of my copy of the lens but a straw poll of fellow photo.net members revealed that everybody's 70-200mm seems to be the same on a D3 or film and nobody could post shots of the 70-200mm producing sharp corners. If anyone can prove me wrong I would actually be very happy.
Well, not that happy as I just sold my 70-200mm and went back to an 80-200mm f2.8D, I used to own one prior to my 'upgrade' to the 70-200mm, which is still just about in production.
The 80-200mm is perfectly sharp into the corners and the only real disadvantages of it compared to the 70-200mm is that it does display more chromatic aberration (easily correctible). It's lack of VR and Silent Wave motor are not issues for what, and how, I photograph so renouncing them was very easy for me. Anecdotally I also had a quick look at the Sigma 70-200mm and also found that to perform very well.
Now that this issue is becoming more well-known I think the 80-200mm is going to start getting much more popular until such time as Nikon replaces the seriously flawed 70-200mm.
It does need to be stressed though that this problem is only really going to be evident if your subject is in focus edge-to-edge as you frequently do in landscape photography. For sports, portaiture, wedding photography and the like this problem is likely to be a non issue. Equally on DX cameras the offending corners are cut off and the 70-200mm is a dream on that format.
Nikon D3 - after one month
I have managed to use the D3 extensively now on a trip to the USA and have come back very pleased with the results. The photographs on the first page of the USA gallery are all taken with the D3 - not that you can tell from the lousy jpegs you will find there. Take it from me that they look stunning when printed.
Although at 12 megapixels the D3 doesn't lead the pack by any stretch compared to the near 17 I used to get from my Canon 1Ds II (not to mention the 1Ds III) the image processing seems to give the final result a much more vivid and three dimensional, although of course slightly less detailed, look. That said at prints of 13X19 inches - as big as I ever routinely print - you wouldn't really be able to tell.
All in all the D3 gets a big gold star from me and short of the 1Ds III (or the hypothesized D3X) it is the camera to get.
On the lens side the 14-24mm arrived an hour after I left for the airport (I hate it when that happens and I hate UPS for torturing me like that) so I had the 17-35mm f2.8, the new 24-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8 VR. The workhorse of the trip turned out to be the 17-35mm and it performed impeccably. Apart from the artificial vignetting I got at 17mm using my Lee filter holder (yes, with the ultra-wide ring) the image quality was first class as expected.
The 24-70mm f2.8G was impressing as well until it started falling apart. Somehow two of the screws going through the lens mounting ring came loose (the cold, vibration - who knows) resulting in the lens flexing at the base. Nikon UK are adamant this was as a result of an impact. As I know that to be hogwash we shall see if other people have this problem over the course of time. You read it here first. Oddly enough I had a Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L that literally fell apart on me in Wadi Rum for the same reason a few years ago so obviously these are cursed focal lengths for me.
Lastly I had the 70-200mm f2.8 VR which was also recently acquired for use on the D3 (I sold the excellent 80-200mm f2.8D). This also had a problem which I was annoyed to find - that being that when zoomed out to 200mm and stopped down to f8 there was an unacceptable amount of corner distortion. Nikon UK are looking at that too - if they tell me that's a result of an impact too I shall go around there and hit them with it...Joking aside that's probably an error made in assembly and I am hopeful of getting it back in perfect operational order.
Some observations on image quality
Most people who look at a carefully made print of a high quality photograph, whether it be inkjet or from a traditional wet darkroom, are often amazed at the quality obtained. Details are sharp, the colours are saturated and the image can even seem three dimensional. Inevitably the first question asked is: "What camera do you use?".
In many ways it's the wrong question or, rather, it's asked for the wrong reason. One's choice of equipment is probably the least important variable in the image taking process - but it is certainly not unimportant either. Almost any camera body built in the last thirty years or more (and which allows user override on any automation it may have) will produce first class results when used knowledgeably. However, if the lens you use is a cheap, plastic zoom more often than not the final image quality will suffer a bit (and sometimes a lot!). Similarly if you fail to use a tripod you will erode the picture quality further unless it's bright enough to use a very fast shutter speed. Your choice of lens aperture can also have a significant effect on the final image as you often have to balance your need, as a landscape photographer, for extensive depth of field with the degradation in image quality due to diffraction. Last but not least is the image size itself. Generally speaking the larger the negative/file size the better the quality of the final print and for this reason I still use medium format film when I can which, when well scanned, can produce results that outstrip any current DSLR. All that the latest cameras - digital or film - bring you is added convenience but not always added quality. That said I am certainly not alone in wanting to own the latest camera or lens but I am conscious of the fact that it is often enough a want rather than a need.
The real determinants of successful landscape photography lie elsewhere than the camera or lens. Chief amongst them is being in the right place at the right time. You need to plan where you are going to be and at what time to catch the right light falling on your chosen subject. This will have you up and about whilst the rest of the world is still fast asleep and have you lingering around well after everybody else has had their dinner. Next after being in the right place at the right time is having the ability to see what will make an eye-catching photograph - your compositional skills. Yet further down the list is having the appropriate technical skills to cope with the scene that is unfolding before you and in last place is the actual equipment you have chosen to use both for image capture as well as processing and printing. Although I ascribe differing importance to these various elements of the photographic process, they nevertheless all form part of a chain. No single element can fall significantly beneath another, in terms of quality, for that image to be compromised.
In short, much of the work and thought involved in making a high quality image occurs before you even take the camera out of its bag. Once you have chosen your location well, arrived at it in good time for the best light to emerge and visualised what kind of shot you want then the remaining steps from image capture to making a final print are usually straightforward and, with experience, automatic.
Nikon F6
As part of my film renaissance my interest in 35mm has returned and along with it has come a couple of Nikon F6s and some AF lenses. Although this will not be a review of the Nikon F6 - of which several can be found on the web - I have had many 35mm SLRs over the years and nothing comes close to the perfection of this camera and particularly in the realm of street/travel photography where it is blisteringly fast, extremely quiet with no wind-on noise whatsoever and relatively compact and unobtrusive for a modern SLR - particularly so if you mount one of the small Nikkor primes like the 50mm f1.4, 35mm f2 or 24mm f2.8. I used an F6 and the 50mm f1.4 prime exclusively on a recent visit to Marrakech and got shots at night in poorly illuminated souks that I would have flailed about to focus on using a Leica M. Additionally the 3D Colour Matrix metering is astounding and the need to bracket shots when shooting slide film seems to be much diminished from other, largely Canon, SLRs I have owned. The only annoyance I have found with this camera is the nonsensical omission of a combined self-timer and mirror lock-up facility which even the humblest FM2 effectively gives you. With the F6 you are obliged to use an (expensive) cable release to make sensible use of the lock-up feature. This is really silly given the huge capabilities of the camera and the almost endless custom functions available to the user. This is certainly not unique to the F6 as the D2Xs, and regrettably also the D3, also suffer from this ridiculous trait.
Nevertheless I am impressed with this camera and my only regret is that I didn't get one when they first came out. The results I get from it when scanned in the glass carrier of my Coolscan 9000 are first rate and have that nice texture from the film grain that I find I now miss from DSLR photos.
Certainly you feel as if you are swimming against the current when you buy 35mm film cameras in 2006 but I still very much like the look of film even though it is admittedly far less convenient than digital. To my mind film still has more character and with a bit of care the results you can extract from 35mm can be outstanding and, indeed, the challenge of extracting the most from it is part of its enduring attraction to me.
Nikon must be congratulated on the F6 and although I hope it won't be the last of its line it almost certainly will be. The serial numbers on my cameras indicate that since it was introduced two years ago only about 27,000 units have been made which anyone can see is a tiny number for a global market. How much longer Nikon will produce them for I certainly can't say but my advice is that if you are tempted by an F6 get one soon before it is too late.