Follow
on TwitterMy Color Preferences for Photoshop CS4 tutorial prompted one user to write, inquiring about disparity in color matching between Photoshop CS3 and CS4.
Apparently it is possible for some of the calibration software out there to have bugs, this thread on the Eizo ColorEdge monitors and scene-referred profiles will be of interest to anyone using an Eizo display (I have no position on whether there is or is not a bug, as I don’t have an Eizo display).
Comparing lenses fairly is a technical challenge. I’ll be showing one reason for this in DAP, sometime in the not too distant future. I recently tested eight different 50mm lenses (5 brands). The results are revealing, showing just how hard it is to make a fair test.
Test results from resolution charts provide a narrow and often misleading snapshot of actual lens behavior: the only good way to understand lens performance is by making real images in the field, and even then distance and subject matter can make significant differences. I recommend against making any lens choices based on test charts alone.
Below is a test image as shot at f/2. The two circles represent the 10mm and 18mm offsets from optical center. The lens was focused at center.
Entire frame at f/2, 50mm lens
Inscribed circles are at the 10mm and 18mm offsets
Consider the two crops below. Both are ~50 feet (16m) from the camera, and ~100 feet (32 meters) in front of the central focus point.
The sharper crop is at a ~16mm offset from optical center, and the other at the ~8mm offset, but both crops are at the same distance from the camera. Sharpness is not the issue so much as the uneven rendition, a ring of sharpness well off center, interacting with distance.
Near edge at f/2, 50mm lens
Entire frame at f/2, 50mm lens
Sharpness near center is not always better than elsewhere! It’s not a bad lens; results were cross-checked with other cameras and lenses. In fact, the difference is more pronounced with the better lenses (the ones with the highest MTF).
Wavy field curvature is the issue here, and when it interacts with distance, focus, focus shift and lens aberrations the results can be difficult to analyze with most subjects. Once you see this bizarre effect (more striking in viewing the entire image), the futility of casual lens tests or fixed distance resolution charts alone becomes clear.
A little stopping down is not a cure; at f/5.6 the effect is in some ways more visible, with the off-center crop nicely sharp and the more central one still blurry. Even f/11 doesn’t completely equalize the two.
The time is ripe for lens designers to give more importance to flat-field designs, especially as we move towards the 30 megapixel range in DSLRs.
I’ve updated my DAP review of the Nikon PC-E 45mm f/2.8D ED with results for the Nikon D3x.
See also my PC-E lens discussion below.
Even on my Apple 30" Cinema Display, which doesn’t have all that great a color gamut (range of colors it can show), the loss of color and detail can readily be seen when certain images are converted to the sRGB color space.
Increasingly, the color gamut of digital cameras like the Nikon D3x pushes well beyond the limits of sRGB and even AdobeRGB. If y’all are shooting JPEG (only), this should be a concern to you: be sure to not push up saturation, or you can end up with an undifferentiated block of solid color—your image is “toast” in sRGB, whether 8-bit or 16-bit. Whether it’s an issue all depends on the subject matter. The quality of Nikon JPEGs is outstanding (Canon in-camera JPEG files are crap), but be sure to set the camera to use AdobeRGB to avoid loss of color resolution.
The fire hydrant below is in the ProPhotoRGB color space. If it looks sickly/pale yellow, then your browser is not color-space aware.
D3x + Zeiss ZF 35/2 Distagon
Why does color space matter? Because on images like this, using a least-common-denominator color space like sRGB can easily blow out the red channel and pin the blue channel. Compare the blue channels below. At left is from ProPhotoRGB (AdobeRGB is similar), and at right is from sRGB. That blows. (You should definitely use 16-bit files with ProPhotoRGB, and it’s advised with AdobeRGB).
Detail-be-gone: Blue channel in ProPhotoRGB (left), sRGB (right)
Looking for a great monitor that can display almost the entire AdobeRGB color gamut? Look no further than the NEC MultiSync 3090WQXi (or one of it’s siblings). I was so impressed with what I saw at MacWorld Expo that I’ve ordered one, because I’m certain it will make a real difference in my ability to judge tone and color. More info.
This fellow is about 2 months late on the mating season migration also known as newt juice season. It’s a game of chicken: move slowly across the road, stay juice-free and you win! I transported this daring individual to safety in the direction he was headed. This shot taken with the Zeiss ZF 35/2 Distagon and too bad I didn’t have the 25/2.8 Distagon with me, which focuses to 6cm from the front element with some really nice Weird Stuff when focused that close.
D3x + Zeiss ZF 35/2 Distagon
Your support of this site is very much appreciated when you buy through my links at page bottom (B&H Photo and/or Amazon.com) or near the top right.
I have received several inquiries about how the Nikon PC-E tilt/shift models perform on the 24.4MP Nikon D3x. My thoughts follow. But first, a digression on prices—
UPDATE (17:40 PST): At least one online vendor (KEH) is showing prices $300 higher than the B&H Photo prices on all 3 PC-E Nikkors. That might mean nothing, or it might (not sure of prices at KEH prior to today). A spot check of various other vendors still appear to be the same, but a price increase would logically come Feb 1.
European readers especially are concerned about price increases on Nikon lenses. Only Nikon USA knows whether US prices on lenses will also rise, but if so, the date will likely be Feb 1 from what I’m hearing—so if you’re “on the fence”, now is the time to act.
Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 45mm f/2.8D ED tilt/shift lens, shown tilted≠
Fully-shifted examples are part of DAP for the PC-E Micro-Nikkor 45mm f/2.8D ED, with examples on the PC-E 24mm f/3.5 coming next week (see my DAP reviews of both lenses using the Nikon D3).
The tilt function is the only way to get a “free lunch” in terms of depth of field, evading the softening effects of diffraction, by allowing wide-open sharpness from close-up to infinity. See the with/without tilt examples with the 45PC in DAP.
All the Nikon PC-E lenses are unequivocal must-haves for the serious landscape shooter. They are not quick and easy lenses to exploit (adjusting tilt), but they offer results (because of tilt) unachievable with any other lenses in their focal length. All are best-in-class (tilt/shift), so their modest optical shortcomings must be kept in perspective. Distortion is the main concern for architectural shooters, here the 24mm and 45mm are at issue, but there are no good alternatives.
In addition to perspective control, the shift function of the PC-E lenses means you can quickly and easily make ~47 megapixel stitched images with a D3x! See this and this for background, and my Nikon D3x review in DAP has some examples.
Please note that the new PC-E models are electronic (“E”) aperture control, and require more recent Nikon bodies (VR capable), like the D3, D3x, D300, D700. A standard mechanical Nikon-to-Canon lens adapter will not suffice for Canon users because of the electronic aperture control. I haven’t tried the 16-9.net adapters, which apparently solve the “E” issue, but also have some drawbacks. Older Nikon bodies may also have some mechanical limitations when shifting (viewfinder overhang).
Note that DX-frame cameras (eg D300) will see outstanding results since they see the “sweet spot” of the image circle. To keep things in perspective, the Nikon PC-E line is as good as it gets, with the possible exception of the ultra-expensive and large/heavy Hartblei/Zeiss 40/80/120mm line, based on medium format optics.
Your support of this site is very appreciated when you buy through my links at page bottom (B&H Photo and/or Amazon.com) or near the top right.
PC-E 85mm f/2.8D — about $1699.
The new version is reportedly a smidgen better on flare than its predecessor, which I’ve used extensively in both visible and infrared. One of my favorite lenses for landscape work, the original 85PC is stunning in both visible and infrared, no mean feat. Save about $550 by buying the older version, and with a lens adapter you can also use it on Canon!
Canon users should buy the older model (non-electronic) and use it with a quality lens adapter; trusted sources tell me that the 85PC when fully shifted is superior to the Canon 90mm tilt/shift. For such a specialty optic, why not get a lens that works on both Canon and Nikon?
The PC-E 45mm and PC-E 24mm will show some color fringing (extremely well controlled when kept in perspective), but Nikon Capture NX2 eliminates it even when the lens is shifted. A jaw-dropping feature of NX2, really, considering it’s a simple checkbox. With Capture NX2 processing for color fringing included, the Nikon PC-E offerings are head and shoulders above the Canon solution.
PC-E 45mm f/2.8D ED — about $1899.
See August 8 2008 comments. On the D3x it shows some corner/edge weakness at full shift at f/8; about 10mm shift (vs 12) will maintain very high quality. Aperture f/11 improves things vs f/8 in the corners, but drops contrast due to diffraction over the whole frame (DAP examples show this). Really a stunning lens compared to any previous tilt/shift lens in this range.
PC-E 24mm f/3.5D ED — about $1899
See July 10, 2008 comments. Expect to see weakness on the D3x beyond about 7mm of shift, with 9mm of shift about the limit for high quality. Having used the exotic Olympus 24mm f/3.5 and the very good Canon 24/3.5 tilt-shift, I can say that while the Nikon PC-E 24/3.5 could be better, it’s the best 24mm tilt/shift ever made, clearly superior to the Olympus and the Canon, as well as the Leica/Schneider 28mm f/2.8 PC-Super Angulon.
Landscape shooters of the PC-E 24/3.5 can respect the maximum shift issue while enjoying the tilt function, for an incredible depth of field boost. If you shoot landscapes wide, the PC-E 24/3.5 has no peer.
Yesterday evening I shot a comparison (scenic at infinity) on the D3x with the Nikon 50/1.4G, Sigma 50/1.4, Zeiss ZF 50/1.4, Nikon 50/1.4D and Voigtlander 58/1.4 Nokton. I was in a rush, as it was dusk and the light was changing steadily, so I had no time for Live View by eye with a loupe, as is my preference. Lenses are extremely hard to compare fairly, and focus is just one of the many challenges, especially out in the field.
The winner: the Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 Planar—it easily showed the best detail and contrast and color, but with a caveat that renders the optical comparison null and void: none of the AF lenses could focus accurately (all front-focused slightly), even with contrast detect AF in Live View, using f/3.5 to preclude focus shift issues. (AF focus accuracy is not a Nikon-specific problem). The Voigtlander 58/1.4 (in-depth review in DAP), apparently is not a good performer at infinity off-center (better at close range), and I have not verified that its infinity stop is perfect—yet another detail when making comparisons.
So how did I focus the Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 Planar? I just set focus at the mechanical infinity stop and the results were perfect. That’s not possible with the Nikon 50/1.4G and SIgma 50/1.4, because they focus well past infinity.
I leave these unchecked, but one word of warning: the checkbox can turn itself on randomly, especially when clicking to activate the window. I have seen this happen at least a dozen times in the course of preparing the tutorial! The result is very confusing—all your images suddenly look wrong (of course).
Nikon D3x pricing has not been met with enthusiasm, yet a reader reports today that the D3x price in the UK just went up from £5499 to £5999, 9.1%.
Could a US price increase be in the works for the D3x? That’s the word on the street, so order your D3x today which is in stock at B&H Photo as I write this.
Readers point out that the currency fluctuations have been not in favor of the British Pound, so we may be spared here in the US, and actually the dollar has risen slightly against the Yen in the past month.
Check out the substantial and numerous rebates at B&H Photo on a wide variety of cameras, lenses, and other items. While Nikon contemplates raising prices, Leica is offering a $1500 rebate on the M8, which says a little about the respective demand.
I thought I had a good understanding of color profiles and color spaces, but the new Compensate for Scene-referred profiles had me stumped (I have yet to find an intelligible explanation for it).
I’ve written a brief tutorial on recommended color settings for Adobe Photoshop CS4.
UPDATE: I’ve added a warning and a correction about the Compensate for Scene-referred profiles option, which should be left enabled.
Read more on the 5D Mark II. Now that I’ve gained some familiarity and experience with the Canon 5D Mark II, I’ve started my DAP review, kicking it off with some examples.
As I mentioned in my Jan 20 entry, the Zeiss ZF 100mm f/2 Makro Planar (about $1499) is a world-class lens, a lens that delivers the goods on the Nikon D3x and the Canon 5D Mark II even wide open, with performance in reserve for future higher resolution cameras. It’s a disappointment that we can’t get DSLRs today without anti-aliasing filters or with monochrome sensors, so that full lens sharpness could be captured.
If you’re shooting top gear, get a top lens! The ZF 100/2 is not apochromatic, but it’s also about $1582, not $3895, which is what a new Leica 90/2 APO Summicron ASPH costs—and guess what? The Leica might be a tad sharper at infinity, but the ZF 100/2 has other talents: color balance, flat field near and far, incredible bokeh, not to mention being an f/2 macro lens that mounts without modification on Nikon (the Leica 90/2 can be used with adapter on Canon, but not Nikon). Every lens has strengths and some have weaknesses, but the ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar brings a lot of strengths together in one package.
Recent shooting on both the Nikon D3x and Canon 5D Mark II shows that the 100/2 Makro-Planar is one of those lenses you’ll just never, ever want to sell once you have it.
The image below was taken in flat (low contrast) blue light, a challenge for any lens, but the marriage of the Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar and the D3x deliver very sharp and pleasing results.
Nikon D3x + Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar @ f/5.6
No matter what I try in DPP (color, contrast, saturation, color temperature, etc), I can’t seem to get the same pleasing color and “zing” out of the Canon 5D Mark II as with the D3x (the same 100/2 Makro-Planar at f/5.6 was used on both cameras). Caveat: lighting almost certainly varied here, one of the dangers of outdoor comparisons. However, the overcast sky cast no shadows in either image; both were subject to heavy overcast conditions.
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar @ f/5.6
See also Jan 25 entry and more on 5D Mark II. Just added to my DAP noise study is a field shot comparison between the Nikon D3x and Canon 5D Mark II, featuring three A/B crops as well as a pair of very large crops.
The results are unequivocal, and even more compelling when viewing a larger area of the image. Mouse over the image below to see the 5D Mark II result.
ISO 100: Nikon D3x, mouse over for Canon 5D Mark II
I disgust [sic] the latest internet worm on Jan 17, which today impacted the internet significantly, as well as affecting my employer’s internal network (I’m sure IT curses the day they decided to allow Windows). Viruses are a monstrous national security threat stunning in their potential for widespread harm. What happens if 9.5 million PCs suddenly are used against key government installations, including power plants and military bases? I long for the good old days where viruses just erased the hard drive.
Read PC or Mac — Making a Sensible Choice. I wish Apple would come more from Service by offering more affordable Macs, or allowing Mac OS X to run on PC hardware, both of which could be done while maintaining or enhancing profitability.
Just published in DAP is my study of long exposures with the Nikon D3x, D3 and Canon EOS 5D Mark II.
Wow! The D3x really shines here, and the 5D Mark II is “hot” in the wrong way.
See also Jan 22 entry. Tonight I made some longer exposures on the Nikon D3x, D3 and the Canon 5D Mark II (mostly in the 30 second range). My findings will be written up in DAP soon, covering a range of ISOs with and without long exposure noise reduction (LENR). My interest is not just long exposures per se, but whether night-time images can stand up to scrutiny: streaking and hot pixels and other nasties are real issues to deal with.
Not so expected was the “christmas tree lights” performance of the Canon 5D Mark II, no matter what the ISO. This is one “dirty” sensor! (firmware version 1.0.7, I observed no “black dots”). You get what you pay for evidently; the 5DM2 is 1/3 the price of the D3x. Exposure times are effectively double with the 5D Mark II because without long exposure noise reduction (dark frame subtraction), you get stuff like this, all over the frame.
Canon 5D Mark II, ISO 200, 30 seconds, actual pixels
Hundreds of such such sprinkles over a 5D Mark II frame are not manageable. They do go away by turning on long exposure noise reduction, but this doubles the time it takes (eg 30 second exposure followed by 30 seconds of dark noise subtraction for a total time of 60 seconds). Not so fun for 15 minute exposures which are rather amazing on the D3x even without LENR.
The D3x can only be described as ridiculously “clean”, as might be expected based on the findings in Pushing the Blacks. The D3x doesn’t even activate long exposure noise reduction for less than 8 second or so exposures (at least not in tonight’s testing). I didn’t find even one such hot pixel in the same image from the D3x—not one, and that’s at the same 30 seconds with all noise reduction disabled.
See also Jan 15 entry. Just published in Pushing the Blacks is my take on one reason the D3x images look so good: an exceptionally clean signal path producing near-black areas with minimal noise, resulting in an unprecedented (for a DSLR) ~13 stops of dynamic range, 1.7 stops more than the Canon 5D Mark II. The D3x’s 14-bit lossless-compressed files are just adequate to faithfully record its images, which pushes closely against medium format territory.
As I write this, the Nikon D3x in stock at Amazon.com, with B&H Photo showing arrival soon.
Test scene after Highlight/Shadows
As I indicated in my Jan 14 blog entry, DAP readers will enjoy coverage of noise on the D3x, D3, Canon 5D Mark II and Canon 1Ds Mark III, including access to the RAW files. I am putting the finishing touches on that report over the next day or two.
Rumors are flying about a forthcoming Mac Pro based on the Intel Core i7. Performance gains are allegedly the biggest we’ve seen for quite some time. We’ll see about that.
UPDATE: I’m reminded by reader Mel G that the site referenced above is a rumors site, and they’ve been wrong (very wrong) before. But it seems likely that a new Mac Pro will need to come sometime soon, and will need to use some variant of the new Core i7, perhaps the Xeon version of the chip. I do hope to obtain the new Mac Pro when it arrives and update my Photoshop performance data.
Looks like the increase in DSLR quality and the economy are leading to some extremely aggressive deals in the medium format world (see my free reviews of medium format, and also a review of the Mamiya DL28 in DAP). I also have some comments on the DL28 in my Dec 11 blog entry.
The latest promotion from PhaseOne: buy a P45+ digital back, and get the camera (Mamiya 645 AFD III) and five lenses which sell (street price) for about US$20,000. There is also a three-lens deal on the P30+.
If you’ve bought a recent model Seagate 7200.11 hard drive like the new 1.5TB model, use extreme caution with your data. More details on my review page at MacPerformanceGuide.com. See also Seagate firmware fix bricks Barracudas.
I updated the firmware in my Nikon D3 today to version 2.0.1 without incident, not that I felt there was any particular need to update it. There is also an update for the Nikon D700 and Canon 40D.
Below is an unedited email from a reader about his experience with Zeiss USA.
I consider the Zeiss ZF 100m f/2 Makro-Planar (about $1582) a world-class lens, as proven over and over every time I use it on Canon and Nikon: it’s easily the best performer of the ZF line, with performance in reserve for 30-40MP cameras. My Zeiss ZF Lenses review covers the entire ZF line on Canon and Nikon. If you buy a ZF lens, please use my links at page bottom—thank you.
Hi Lloyd,
I thought you might be interested in hearing of a recent experience I had with Zeiss customer service.
In April, 2008 I bought a factory refurbished Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro Planar from B&H photo. It quickly became my favorite macro lens, simply a wonderful optic. Last week, I went to use it for the first time in a few weeks, and was dismayed to see quite a bit of debris inside. Not dust, but very fine pieces of a black substance, which I presumed was bits of the internal anti-reflective coating.
I immediately emailed Rich Schleuning, the Zeiss rep, and gave him the details. He promptly returned my email, and told me to send the lens to him. He said that if, after inspection, he confirmed my findings, he would send me a replacement refurbished lens.
Rich contacted me yesterday, confirmed the problem, but told me he didn't have a replacement refurbished lens. Instead, he is sending me a brand new lens.
Zeiss was under no obligation to do this. The lens was no longer under warranty. But they did the honorable thing and replaced a defective product. I have to wonder how many other companies would have done this. This is the way to build and keep loyal customers. Provide a great product,
and back it with superb customer service. I am very impressed.
Try getting that kind of response from Canon or Nikon! To be clear, Zeiss is not going to swap out lenses for every customer who thinks s/he has a problem lens, but this email speaks volumes about attitude.
See also Jan 17 entry. I like the 21MP Canon 5D Mark II. Considering the $2699 price, the 5DM2 is currently an unbeatable value, only the Sony A900 comes close, and for me Live View is a strict requirement: it’s pointless to have a 20+ MP camera without some means of guaranteeing precise focus, even if one is using AF lenses, which can be prone to error.
The 5D Mark II has numerous shortcomings, which I’ll detail at a future time, but it’s image quality is second only to the Nikon D3x, and at high ISO even that’s not clear, as I’ll soon show in my coming-soon DAP 4-way noise comparison. Add in relatively small size and light weight, and it’s awfully nice to carry as compared with a Big Black Box (Canon 1Ds Mark III or Nikon D3/x). In short, it’s a winning combination and terrific value.
My main complaint about the 5DM2 won’t matter for most people: I find it extremely difficult to manually focus with any accuracy; I’m way off with the Leica 90/2 APO. That’s using the stock focusing screen. Combined with the black AF rectangles in the viewfinder which never go away (one of them is dead-center), it’s a really annoying camera for manual focus use. Next step is to try another focusing screen like the Eg-S Super Precision Matte, which should help matters quite a bit (I hope).
The viewfinder of the 5DM2 is also crappy compared to the D3x or 1Ds Mark III, but hey—it’s 1/3 the price of those cameras. And its aperture-priority exposure mode blows highlight all the time, but I can live with both shortcomings.
Anyway, what do you do with a new camera while chaperoning girl scouts door-to-door selling cookies? Shoot anything visually interesting to learn how a camera performs—which is to say that the first lesson is that the most lenses are going to disappoint on the 5DM2, but not the Leica 90/2 APO-Summicron-R, provided it is focused accurately, a perfect use for Live View (focus in LV mode, exit LV, frame, shoot).
Power
Canon 5D Mark II + Leica 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-R
Who’s to say if figures are accurate, but if the true figure is only 1/10 of the 8 million PCs infected, it still is a solid reason to choose the Mac or Linux instead, as I wrote in October 2006 in Mac or PC — Making a Sensible Choice.
Is the latest worm a test? Who’s to say there aren’t 10 more or 100 more like it, of a more destructive nature, lying in wait, to be used in times of conflict? Viruses are a national security threat, and the idea that governments don’t have crack teams of programmers thinking about crippling the communications infrastructure of opponents via viruses seems farfetched. Combining viruses along with “bot” networks of millions of PCs for denial of service attacks could prove extremely potent.
Macs are not immune from viruses, and sooner or later a real threat will emerge, but so far the security threats to Mac OS X, a unix-based OS, have been a non-issue by comparison to Windows.
It’s a shame that Apple can’t get its act together and bring the price down for people who’d love to use Mac OS X, but can’t afford the price. While at the high end Apple is actually quite competitive when similar quality and feature sets are compared, the under $1000 mark is an area Apple just doesn’t serve (Mac Mini doesn’t count once all the required extras are added).
See my Mac Performance Guide for selecting and configuring a Mac, or sprucing up your existing one.
See also Jan 7 entry. I did some field shooting today with the Canon 5D Mark II using the 24-105mm f/4L, the 70-200mm f/4L and the 50mm f/1.2L. Not my usual optical fare, but I thought it worthwhile to see how some regular Canon lenses would do.
My impression is “we need better lenses!”. The lenses I mentioned can produce very good results, but depth of field and edge/corner sharpness just aren’t very appealing, even at f/8. Combined with obvious field curvature in some cases, it makes it tough to create a sharp image of some subjects. That’s the world we now enter with ultra high resolution cameras trending beyond 21 megapixels towards 30-40 megapixels.
Even with prime lenses it’s an issue: I have yet to find a 50mm lens of any brand (Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Sigma, Olympus) that delivers sharpness across the frame without weird field curvature of some kind, far from an academic issue.
I had been field shooting the 5DM2 with the Zeiss ZE 50mm f/1.4 Planar, and finding that I was not getting sharp images across the frame, even at f/5.6. This led me to some controlled tests. Serendipity resulted in finding a scene that shows just how bizarre the field curvature is on a variety of 50mm lenses (not the scene below). How about sharp edges 100 feet in front of the center? I’ll be writing the field curvature issue up in detail in DAP. Here’s one example I came across today; observe the sharp leaves at upper left, a good distance in front of the center, where the point of focus lies.
Field curvature — leaves in corner are about 100' (33m) in front of the center
Canon 5D Mark II EF 50mm f/1.2L @ f/1.4
Of course, one way around all this frustrating sharpness stuff is to embrace it, and shoot with minimal depth of field: after all, drawing the viewer’s eye to one sharp spot is all that its really needed.
Doggie Message Board
Canon EOS 5D Mark II + EF 50mm f/1.2L @ f/1.2
A quick test of tilt with the large PN-11 extension tube on the Nikon 85mm f/2.8D PC-Micro-Nikkkor was surprising: even at full tilt (12mm), there was no sign of vignetting at f/8. Apparently the tilt mechanism keeps the optics centered enough so that even going down to 1:1 allows full use of the tilt function.
Leaf on Deck
Nikon D3x + 85mm f/2.8D + PN-11 extension tube, handheld
The currency of thug-ruled Zimbabwe gives a whole new meaning to “printing money” and to the term inflation (an expansion in the money supply usually associated with higher prices). Thugs have it easy: print whatever you like, put an expiration date right on the bill, and presto, it’s like last week’s fish. At least that approach is the truth about the value of paper money. This note became worthless in August 2008, four months ahead of schedule. I’m told this is the largest banknote ever printed.
Hundred billion dollar note from Zimbabwe
Canon 5D Mark II + EF 50mm f/1.2L @ f/8
Here in the US, the scary part is that our leaders actually believe that we can print our way out of an economic downturn without risks that could make today’s events look like a tea party. We all should hope (and perhaps pray) that the unprecedented expansion in the US money supply doesn’t end badly in hyper inflation or an accelerating and unstoppable deflation, larger money supply or not. The only real cure means abandoning a fiat currency to link the dollar to something physical, like gold (or mouse turds), which can’t be created out of thin air by politicians as the dollar can, but things have to get far worse before that option gets put onto the table. Read The Creature from Jekyll Island, but not before bed if you’re prone to nightmares.
See also Jan 14 entry. There apparently is a solid scientific basis for my Jan 4 assertion that the Nikon D3x offers the highest image quality yet seen in a digital SLR.
Of course, numeric ratings are one thing, but seeing field results is quite another—the D3x offers stunning results, a home-run for Nikon, if only the cost part of the equation can be dealt with rationally. Which is to say if you can afford it, and you want the very best, there is no better choice available today. Hopefully this will prompt Canon to not offer their second-best effort, as they did with the EOS 1Ds Mark III.
I trust experience in real-world field use over any lab tests, since there are factors that numbers do not capture. The D3x does not disappoint in the field, or in the lab.
See also Jan 7 entry. I have an extensive noise study in the works (for DAP) comparing the Nikon D3x, D3, Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III and EOS 5D Mark II. In it, I’ll address what the real world issues are from ISO 50 through ISO 25,600.
It’s taken me longer than I’d have liked for a few reasons—shooting and analysis take considerable time and effort, and I found enough interesting issues that required exploration that I re-shot my original tests to confirm some very interesting findings.
Even at low ISO values, noise is relevant, especially if you’re a fine-arts photographer looking for clean blacks, and extracting detail in darker areas (see Noise and Multiple Exposures). The example below shows horizontal streaks, and this is at ISO 100! ISO 50 fares little better. Some cameras do this, even medium format cameras, and some do not.
Pattern Noise (streaks) at ISO 100
My exploration of noise is not going to offer the naive shot of the Macbeth color checker card often seen (though I include one). Nor are the mathematical noise graphs of much use in understanding how a camera behaves with real images—the issues of banding/streaking, how very dark areas perform, usable dynamic range and color rendition in dark areas all come into play in a complex way, which makes it important to treat the subject fairly across multiple cameras.
Unfortunately life often deals some setbacks and my writeup has been delayed due to recent illness, so publication has been pushed back a bit.
See also Jan 4 entry. My DAP review of the Nikon D3x is more than just a review; it imparts a lot of useful working knowledge, and not just relevant to the D3x. For example, what role does noise play in the D3x vs the D3? Do you really need a D3 if you have a D3x? Canon EOS 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III noise comparisons are coming soon to DAP.
What many people want to know is how a D3x resolution compares to a D3. DAP covers this question, including larger crops and access to RAW files, as well as many more areas.
Images below were taken with the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro (see review), one of the world’s best lenses.
Here are D3x and D3 crops. Note how much larger the D3x really is; numbers don’t sink in the same way seeing it does. Both images were processed with RAW Developer 1.8.2 to extract maximal detail, and both are very fine results.
Nikon D3x (left) vs D3 (right) actual pixels
Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro @ f/5.6
Compare the Nikon D3 image scaled up to match the D3x image. There are various techniques for upscaling (bicubic sharper was used here), but no technique can invent detail or overcome this large a gap in performance.
Nikon D3x (left) vs D3 (right) actual pixels
Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro @ f/5.6
What happens when we downsample the 24.4MP D3x image to 12.1MP D3 resolution, a 70.37% linear reduction? The D3x is a better 12.1MP camera than the D3 is; downsampling adds clarity and reduces digital artifacts. These images were made at f/11 and ISO 1600; better results are possible at f/5.6, and at each ISO the effect is the same. It’s not a subject-specific effect, it occurs in every comparison I make. Mouse over the D3x image (left) to see the D3 image, also shown at right. Observe the clarity of fine detail on the word “per” and “10 Vitamins and Minerals”, and the lack of aliasing and “fly specks” with the D3x version.
Nikon D3x (left) vs D3 (right) actual pixels
Mouse over D3x image to see D3 image
Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro @ f/11
Below is another example; the effect of downsampling the D3x image is as if the Bayer de-mosaicing artifacts have been eliminated.
Nikon D3x (left) vs D3 (right)
Mouse over D3x image to see D3 image
Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro @ f/11
To make it more easier to see just how clean the D3x image is when downsampled, here are the same crops at 200% (you need a modern browser that does quality scaling).
Nikon D3x (left) vs D3 (right) 200%
Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro @ f/11
In practice, this difference means that the 24.4MP of D3x resolution can be used to smaller prints with ultra-clean detail, free of most typical digital artifacts.
One thing is very clear about the desirability of ultra high resolution DSLRs: a 60 megapixel DSLR could be used to make 30 megapixel images of stunning clarity by downsampling (either in camera or in post-processing). The example shown above looks strikingly similar to the results seen in the monochrome vs color sensor I showed in my July 27, 2007 blog entry.
My first day with the 21.1 megapixel Canon EOS 5D Mark II (“5DM2”) afforded only snapshot handheld shooting, even at night (and my time is limited for a few more days). I intend to cover the EOS 5D Mark II in DAP, though it certainly will take more time than the D3x did, as the holiday break afforded far more study time than this new year will. Quality coverage takes numerous hours to shoot, cross-check, and write, it can’t be rushed.
iPod field trip to MacWorld?
Canon 5D Mark II + Zeiss ZE 50mm f/1.4 Planar, ISO 50, 1/400 sec @ f/5.6
My first impressions of the 5DM2, all preliminary based on very limited shooting—
The smaller size and lighter weight are a welcome relief over the D3x and Canon 1Ds Mark III. It’s a heck of a fun little camera to shoot, and I like the rear LCD better than any LCD I’ve seen before—bright and clear.
Live View mode works really well, far better for handheld shooting than the brain-damaged Nikon implementation (the numerous issues I detail in my D3x review in DAP).
Same mid-grade 5D build quality in the 5D Mark II, with the cheesy battery compartment door and sliding compact flash cover. This is a solid camera, but it just isn’t in the same league as a Canon 1 series or Nikon D700/D3/D3x. So get one for less money and be satisfied.
The viewfinder is not nearly so nice as the 1Ds Mark III or the Nikon D3. Check the prices and don’t complain! The stock screen is difficult for manual focus.
I love the balance and feel with the Leica 90/2 APO-Summicron-R ASPH (using an adapter). The Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 Planar is also a very nice match in size and balance.
Noise is much harder to characterize, one reason I think “by the numbers” noise measurements are useless—the character of noise has visual effects.
Moscone Flags
Canon 5D Mark II + Leica 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-R ASPH, ISO 3200, 1/25 sec handheld
I did some night shooting in San Francisco. The Canon 5D Mark II handles noise very differently than the Nikon D3/D3x (at least using Capture NX2 and DPP), and once I run a proper A/B test with the same lens, this area will be explored in detail. But my first impression is that In some ways the 5D Mark II looks very good for noise, in others ways it’s distracting noise (hot pixels, streaking), as well as a lot of chroma noise. I also observe the widely-reported “black dots” problem using the as-shipped firmware 1.0.6.
NIght walker
Canon 5D Mark II + Leica 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-R ASPH, ISO 3200, 1/100 sec handheld
Caution with Canon Digital Photo Professional 3.5.1 update, released December 21, 2008. The update introduced a disturbing side effect: detail-blurring noise reduction is enabled inappropriately, at least on two of my systems, and there is no warning from the software. This is the Mac OS X version; reader Timothy S confirms the same problem and fix for Windows.
DPP 3.5.1 defaults to Apply Camera Settings for noise reduction, or at least it did on two of my systems (Macs). The problem is that even with all noise reduction in the camera turned off, noise reduction is enabled at level 2 for RAW files, even at ISO 50 and ISO 100! I strongly recommend setting the DPP preferences for no noise reduction as follows:
RECOMMENDED (not default) settings for DPP’s Preferences/ToolPalette tab
See below: with the default DPP preference of Apply camera settings, all in-camera settings for noise reduction turned off, and ISO 50/100/etc, DPP still turns on level 2 noise reduction, which visibly blurs the image. And notice how the Apply is missing. It should be in the “NR” box.
DPP bug: noise reduction forced on even when off, and even at ISO 50, 100!
See also Dec 30 entry. I discussed using the amazing Nikon 200mm f/2 VR on the Nikon D3x in my Dec 30 blog entry, with the important caveat to never support the combination by a strap on the D3x itself, lest you warp the lens mount, which is no fun.
The 200VR is large and heavy, but can be carried for a time with reasonable comfort using an OpTech Pro Loop strap attached to the lugs on the lens itself.
Recommended strap
, click for more
With the big lens hood of the 200VR hanging down, I can support it with one hand on the lens hood and one on the lens. Otherwise my neck suffers, and the rig can swing about. Or I'll cradle the whole setup in my arms like a baby, or over one arm with the other hand supporting, etc; I alternate to avoid fatigue.
With the OpTech Pro Loop strap, you can quickly swap the strap from lens to camera in seconds via the quick-release connectors; it is a two-part affair, one part is the neck portion and the other two pieces attach to the camera or lens. Buy two complete straps so you have 4 of the connector pieces for lens and body and just leave those pieces attached to camera body and lens.
The foregoing is all for hand-holding. A monopod offers a support option, but I find it problematic for getting the instant framing needed for fast-moving subjects (particularly up/down). I'm just not a monopod guy, and I found via testing that I don’t make sharper pictures on a monopod vs handholding. For handheld shots, be sure to jam the camera body against your shoulder and head so as to mass-couple the setup to your gross body movements (only). That is how I make sharp pictures at low shutter speeds with any lens.
Special offer: buy a D3x or D3 or Canon 5D Mark II or 1D[s] Mark III, or other major purchase any brand any product(s) through my links below. After confirming your purchase though my link, I’ll give you DAP and Zeiss ZF Lenses free (if you already have them I’ll extend your subscription or you can get Digital Infrared).
Note that phone orders, walk-ins, etc do not count towards click-through commissions, and mistakes do not count—the commission must be credited to diglloyd.com to qualify (there is no cost to you). Offer good through Jan 31, 2009.
Sorry, I cannot extend this offer to smaller purchases because it must be handled manually (time-consuming). I very much appreciate it when you use my links—thank you, it helps support this blog.
See also Jan 3 entry. In perhaps my most intriguing findings yet on the D3x, I’ve explored color and noise with the Nikon D3x and Nikon D3 side-by-side, using my reference lens, the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro. The extensive writeup is in my Nikon D3x review in DAP.
The crop below is from the D3x at ISO 1600, downsampled to D3 actual-pixels resolution. Noise?
D3x at D3 resolution, ISO 1600
Nikon D3x + Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro @ f/11
And so I’ll repeat what I’ve stated before: the Nikon D3x offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen. The online bitching and moaning about the price won’t change that fact—I don’t like it either. But if you need or want the very best DSLR available today, the Nikon D3x is your camera. In fact, I have zero desire to shoot my Canon 1Ds Mark III any more. None at all. It’s not about resolution: it’s about stunning image quality.
See also Jan 2 entry. Yesterday I showed a simple upscaling with RAW Developer to 200% (linear) or 97.5 megapixels.
Below are two more takes—the same image was processed by RAW Developer at native resolution (6048 X 4032) then upsampled by PhotoZoom Pro 2.3.4 to 200%, using S-Spline XL and Photo - Detailed with Unsharp Mask Radius = 3.00.
PhotoZoom Pro has numerous algorithms and parameters, so don’t assume that this example is the best result it can produce—it’s just one variant. To my eye, this variant looks a little artificial, but the edge acutance might work very well for printing. See the next example below for comparison.
Mouse over this image to compare to the Spline Grained example further below. The edge effects are where the key differences lie.
PS: don’t assess color on these images, the light was flat and blue and no attempt was made to make the color look good.
D3x scaled to 97.5 megapixels with PhotoZoom Pro
Nikon D3x + Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro @ f/5.6
Another version below, also with PhotoZoom Pro: Spline with “Photo Grained” and a dash of wide-radius Unsharp Mask in Photoshop CS4 {8, 50, 0}. The Photo Grained result looks natural to me. Mouse over it to compare to yesterday’s example. The results are very similar.
D3x scaled to 97.5 megapixels with PhotoZoom Pro
Nikon D3x + Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro @ f/5.6
Many hours of experimentation are needed to gain experience as to what works best for various types of images. Throw in a dash of personal preference, the type of material for printing, and there are endless decisions to make.
In the past 10 days, I’ve covered a a lot of ground in DAP in my Nikon D3x review, focusing on image quality from various angles. The pace must now slow, as my winter “break” is now over, but more is to come.
DAP readers keen on the D3x should email me a concise list of what they’d most like to know about the D3x. Those areas with the most interest are where I’ll direct my efforts first.
See also Jan 1 entry. How well do D3x images scale? The crop below is actual pixels after scaling to 97.5 megapixels (12096 X 8064), using RAW Developer. It has been sharpened during RAW conversion and also in Photoshop CS4. Probably those versed in the finer points of image scaling could do even better, and sometime soon I’ll be exploring how well PhotoZoom Pro and Genuine Fractals do scaling of D3x images.
You don’t need “faith” with the Nikon D3x: it’s offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen. Read my full review in DAP.
D3x scaled to 97.5 megapixels
Nikon D3x + Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro @ f/5.6
See also Dec 30 entry. Yesterday I added to my review of the Nikon D3x a second noise study from ISO 50 through ISO 6400, as well as my findings on the dynamic range difference between ISO 50 and ISO 100.
Bokeh of the Nikon 200mm f/2 VR is really lovely and it’s a stunning performer on the D3x.
Critters on Protea
Nikon D3x + Nikon 200mm f/2VR, 1/320 @ f/2, ISO 200
I’m sure glad I got to sleep that extra leap second last night—on my schedule every little bit helps. And when 9,192,631,770 periods/oscillations of radiation from a Cesium-133 atom at the ground state occurred while I snoozed, it felt positively refreshing.
If you had a little too much wild turkey last night, just think how this guy feels!
Wild Turkey (in the zoo)
Nikon D3x + Nikon 200mm f/2VR, 1/1000 @ f/2, ISO 400