Photographing fireworks remains tricky business

▼ Tonight is the third night of the Scheveningen International Fireworks Festival! Hopefully the rain will be done by then. Photographing fireworks remains tricky business, though.

Last week, I used my trusty Nikon D7100 with the 18-55 mm kit lens. The zoom range is fairly suitable here, and it has image stabilization, so I was able to get reasonably sharp photos at 1/8th of a second hand-held. However, they're not quite as sharp as I hoped, so maybe if the weather is good tonight I'm going to take a tripod, so I can use even longer shutter times to get more of the streaming effect.

It could be that a lot of the movement in the fireworks in caused by the wind blowing the fireworks away, though. A tripod isn't going to help against that.

I set up the camera for "back button focus", so I had more control over the autofocus. Back button focus means programming the AE-L/AF-L button for "AF-ON". With this setting, pressing the shutter doesn't make autofocus happen, you need to press the AE-L/AF-L button for that. This way, there's no autofocus delay when shooting, which is useful with fireworks, because the autofocus system can't always get a good focus lock on it. But with cheap zoom lenses it's important to refocus after zooming, because the focus drifts when zooming. A quick press of the AE-L/AF-L button while pointing the camera at a distant light takes care of that.

I set the aperture and shutter speed manually, but used auto ISO so the camera would adjust the ISO to match the brightness of the fireworks. I experimented with -0.7 to -2 exposure compensation, and -1.3 seemed to work the best.

Permalink - posted 2014-08-22

Comparing black-and-white film and digital

▼ I've been experimenting with shooting film a bit recently, which gives me that nice retro feel. And nothing is more retro than shooting black-and-white film. So let's compare the results to the black-and-white images current cameras produce.

In addition to using some classic Ilford HP5 film (well, Ilford HP5 Plus these days), which is very similar to Kodak Tri-X, I also wanted to try out some chromogenic film. Chromogenic film is black-and-white film that is developed using the same C41 process that is used to develop regular color negatives, so you can have it processed pretty much anywhere.

However, although some chain departement stores still offer this service, in practice attempts to use it may get you stuck in a web of confusion. So it's easier to just support your local photo store that still has its own lab, especially if you don't care about prints and scan the negatives anyway. Here in The Hague HAFO runs their lab weekday afternoons so you can have your film developed and/or printed in a few hours.Both color negative and black-and-white, I think slides take longer. But in this case I went to the HEMA and although it took a week the prints came out in proper black and white without a color cast—be it with less than super strong blacks.

In any event, let's look at the same shot using different cameras/film. (Click for larger versions.) First, the iPhone 5. (Actually I took this one almost an hour later than the others, so my position and the light are slightly different.) The iPhone turns in an image that is very contrasty:

The Canon Powershot SX280 HS, on the other hand, produces a rather flat image:

The Nikon D7100 occupies the middle ground:

This is Ilford HP5 Plus film shot using a Nikon FE camera. It looks a bit overexposed but not very contrasty:

And this is Ilford XP2 Super film in a Nikon F55, also overexposed but more contrast:

At these small sizes it's not really possible to judge the grain and detail, so click the different links here to compare the different versions of the crop below. I had to leave out the iPhone version because it was shot from a slightly different angle so it doesn't really compare.

Note that for both the D7100 and the two types of film this is not a fair representation of their best results, as I used a fairly soft lens on the D7100 and not the highest JPEG resolution, while the film was scanned at 2400 DPI. A good scanner can no doubt produce better results, but mine doesn't really produce more detail at higher DPI settings, although the grain gets a bit smoother.

(The building is the Gemeentemuseum (municipal museum) in The Hague, famous architect Berlage's last building, which is designed to illuminate the artwork with daylight that's channeled from the glass roof.)

So what can we conclude?

One caveat: this is ISO 400/27° film. I'm going to shoot some ISO 125/22° Ilford FP4, too, as well as some color Kodak Ektar 100/21° and see how that turns out. But as far as sharpness and grain/noise goes, digital reigns supreme this day and age. HP5+ is surprisingly grainy most of the time, but even though it's the same sensitivity, XP2 Super has a lot less. There's also the phenomenon where scanned images, especially at somewhat lower resolutions, show noticeably more grain than oldfashioned prints or higher resolution scans. HP5+ especially suffers from this phenomenon.

However, the amount of grain visible varies a lot between different photos. Often enough, the grain gets in the way of fine detail, but sometimes it actually adds to the look of the photo. So I see myself shooting black-and-white as well as color film some more in the future, but my D7100 will still be my camera of choice in most situations.

Lest my faithful readers think I only shoot test shots, here a couple of photos that turned out nice, having a classic, timeless look. This is an HP5+ one of the Burger King at the Spuistraat in The Hague. Is the guy in white also admiring the building from 1909, or is he trying to deciding whether to have a hamburger for lunch?

And this one is of the Goudenregenstraat in The Hague shot on XP2 Super.

Permalink - posted 2014-07-13

Nikon FE and/or AI lenses: manual focus in the digital era

▼ Last week, I wrote a review of the Nikon F65 camera. Although the F65 is more than a decade old, it supports most of the photographic automation that we're used to with our digital cameras. The F65 left me wanting to go even further back in time, so this week I'm going to explore manual focus photography with a Nikon FE SLR and Nikon AI and AIS lenses on my current Nikon D7100 digital camera.

Nikon FE with 50 mm AI lens and D7100 with 105 mm AIS lens

The FE is a single lens reflex (SLR) camera sold by Nikon from the late 1970s to the early 1980s, when it was replaced by the FE2. The FE is almost entirely mechanical, except for the light meter and the electronically controlled shutter. There's also the FM and FM2, the FE and FE2's siblings, which have a mechanically controlled shutter. The FM and FM2 can work at the full range of shutter speeds even without batteries installed, while the FE and FE2 can only use a 1/90 shutter speed without batteries.

Originally, I wanted to buy a camera that would operate without batteries, but I decided to go for the FE rather than the FM because unlike the FM, the FE has what we now call aperture priority mode, where you set the aperture and the camera automatically determines the shutter speed. With the FM and FM2, you need to adjust the aperture and the shutter speed until the light meter indicates you've selected a correct exposure. Even better would be the FM3a, which splits the difference by letting you use mechanical shutter speeds without batteries and electronic shutter speed control with batteries. However, the FE is a good deal cheaper and easier to find.

Focussing is done manually on all these cameras. The FE was introduced along with AI lenses, but is still compatible with non-AI lenses from before 1977. (Unlike the FE2.) When Nikon introduced autofocus lenses, these were still compatible with the AI system for many years. However, around the year 2000 Nikon introduced "G" lenses, which no longer have an aperture ring, so they don't work on the FE and other cameras that require the lens aperture to be set though an aperture ring. (See Understanding old Nikon lenses: AI, AI-S, AF and AF-S.)

The advantage of using manual focus lenses on a manual focus camera is that everything works together well. The lenses have a nice, big focus ring that moves smoothly, and the viewfinder has microprisms and a split-image prism in the center to help determine focus. The FE's viewfinder image is also much bigger than that of newer cameras. (At least, the ones that I've been able to afford.) When mounting an AF lens on the FE, there's no AF motor to focus the lens, so those lenses work the same as older manual focus lenses once you release the little lock that keeps the aperture on the smallest setting.

The FE's light meter is activated when you pull the film advance lever back from the body a bit. A needle then indicates the shutter speed you should use, or in AUTO mode, the shutter speed the camera has selected. A second needle indicates the shutter speed you've selected or AUTO. The aperture in use is visible though a little window that looks out over the aperture ring on the lens. The FE's light meter is powered by two tiny LR44 batteries, which are supposed to last very long. However, I managed to run a set down in a couple of weeks, probably by leaving the light meter on overnight by accident. When that happened, the light meter stopped working correctly. The shutter still worked, but I'll have to wait until the film is developed to see if it did so correctly. I also noticed that the 8 second shutter time setting is more like 11 seconds, but I'm not sure if shorter shutter times are also longer than they should be. The photos look properly exposed.

Former bank building at the Prins Hendrikplein, The Hague — Nikon FE with 50 mm lens

I enjoy using the FE, but it's certainly not for everyone. I grew up with this type of camera, so for me there's the nostalgia factor and I'm familiar with the slower, more deliberate shooting style that the manual focus all but imposes. (Although I sometimes forget to focus!)

The FE works best with the 50 mm f/1.8 or f/2 lenses that typically come with it, as well as the 28 - 135 mm focal length range that was commonly used back in the manual focus days. As focal lengths get longer and shorter, focussing gets harder. I have an AF 70 - 210 mm lens that works on the FE, but it's just not worth it. At f/5.6, the focus aids get too dark to work well, and using one hand to keep the camera steady and the other to focus makes it hard to keep the viewfinder image still enough to see whether it's focussed properly. Also, without vibration reduction, you need very good light to be able to shoot with short enough shutter speeds to avoid camera shake. My advice: stick to 135 mm max focal length and use lenses faster than f/5.6.

Similar but different is mounting a manual focus lens on a modern camera like the D7100. Unlike the excised aperture ring, all of Nikon's lenses still have a focus ring, so you can use manual focus with any autofocus lens. However, the focus ring can be rather small with very short travel. Using a manual focus lens is usually much nicer. The D7100 and up have the AI aperture coupler ring so the camera can read the aperture setting when using AI and AIS manual focus lenses once you've told the camera the lens its focal length and maximum aperture. So you set the aperture using the aperture ring and the camera sets the shutter speed in aperture priority mode, or you also set that yourself in manual mode. The aperture will still show up in all the right places on the displays and the EXIF data.

Autofocus SLRs don't have the viewfinder focussing tools, so focussing using just the viewfinder image is harder than on a camera like the FE. However, the autofocus sensors will tell you whether you've achieved correct focus, and even in which direction to turn the focus ring in you haven't. Or use live view with magnification for very precise focussing.

After shooting with manual focus lenses for a bit, I have a new found appreciation for my autofocus lenses. A manual focus lens really has to bring something unique to the table to earn its keep—just being a stop faster or a hair sharper just isn't good enough to take the enormous hit in usability. However, for certain types of photography, manual focus isn't as big a deal, as autofocus doesn't work so well anyway. This is true for astrophotography, where autofocus is hit-or-miss. Unlike modern lenses, many manual focus lenses have a hard infinity stop. Once you've checked that this is properly calibrated, you can simply turn the focus ring all the way and Bob's your uncle— you're focussed on infinity.

Another area where autofocus doesn't always deliver is macro photography. I got myself a Micro Nikkor 105 mm f/2.8 recently, and the manual focus doesn't bother me. When shooting handheld, I just move backward and forward to achieve focus. (And often shoot dozens of images in the hopes one is sharp...) When using a tripod, I use live view magnification to focus.

Street in Amsterdam — Nikon D7100 with 105 mm AIS lens

Verdict: unlike the Nikon F65, which I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone with only a sliver of interest in shooting film, I'm not recommending all this manual focus stuff. If you want to indulge in nostalgia or want to broaden your photographic (time) horizons, by all means, get an FE and/or some manual focus lenses. Or if you just want to see what an AI or AIS lens looks like on your modern Nikon, just get the one. 50 mm lenses are the most common, with the older AI versions looking the coolest.

Nikon manual focus lenses still work on many current Nikon cameras, as well as on many other cameras using adapters, so the second hand prices are relatively high compared to manual focus lenses built by other companies. As such, you're usually better off getting a second hand AF or AF-S lens for only a little more.

Permalink - posted 2014-06-24

Review: Nikon F65 camera, shooting film in the digital age

▼ Earlier this week I got myself a Nikon F65 camera. The F65 is a single lens reflex 35 mm film camera that Nikon sold from 2001 to around 2005. You can get these second hand for next to nothing these days; I even saw one at the not-very-cheap photo store for € 35. Sure, you have to pay for batteries and film, so using one of these costs some money, but owning one is very cheap. The F65 was never a high end camera, though: the construction is all plastic, and the viewfinder is not great. The plastic construction is not a problem, however, this is what makes the F65 so much lighter than any Nikon DSLR at a hair over 400 grams.

This camera does everything you need and very little that you don't. Although the design is more than a decade old, it still has all the important features you'll find on modern cameras: matrix metering, an auto mode as well as the P/A/S/M modes and even five scene modes. It has a built-in pop-up flash. Just set the mode dial to auto or P (if you don't want any flash) and give it to anyone and they'll shoot great pictures with it. The F65 is much less intimidating than a hulking DSLR with three times the buttons.

The F65 lacks many of the complex settings found on a camera like the D7100, partly because many of them only apply to digital and partly because the F65 is a simpler camera. But that's fine, I'm not going to experiment with advanced techniques on film. That's where digital shines with its immediate feedback.

Even film loading is simple: just put in the film cartridge and pull the film towards the winding spool. Close the back, and the camera takes it from there. When the roll full, it rewinds automatically.

The F65 shares the above with its little sibling, the F55. However, the F65 is a much, much better deal. Unlike the F55, the F65 supports the ML-L3 infrared remote that also works with the D7100. More importantly, the F65 works with all of Nikon's autofocus lenses, so you can use your modern AF-S lenses on it. The VR (vibration reduction) even works! (Although I fear for the life of the two rather small and non-rechargeable CR2 batteries that power the F65.)

Now I hear you thinking "that's nice, but all my current lenses are DX lenses that aren't compatible with film". Turns out DX lenses, which are made for cameras like the D7100, which have an image sensor that is smaller than the 35 mm film frame, are not entirely unusable on film cameras. When I mounted my 35 mm f/1.8 DX lens on the F65, the viewfinder image didn't show any dark corners. However, the viewfinder only shows 89% of the image that ends up on film, and the result on film looks like this:

So not usable, I'd say. (At least, if you want to print the old fashioned way. If you scan the negatives, you can always crop away the dark corners.) Next, I tried the 18-55 VR II lens. The image on the left is zoomed to 18 mm, the middle one 24 mm, where once again things looked good through the viewfinder, and the image on the left was taken zoomed to 35 mm.

The 24 mm image stil has dark corners, but at 35 mm everything's fine. So this lens is actually completely usable at 35 mm—probably even a bit wider, like 28 or 30 mm.

Next up, my Tamron 10-24 mm lens at 10, 13 and 14 mm, respectively:

This is a fantastic result: 14 mm on film is actually slightly wider than 10 mm on DX. So this lens is extremely useful on film!

I got my F65 with an AF 28-80 f/3.5-5.6D lens. This is dinkiest all-plastic Nikon lens I've ever seen. The thing I like is that it's an AF lens with an aperture ring, so it's compatible with even older Nikon cameras. If you don't care about that, get it with the AF 28-80 f/3.5-5.6G. which is also all-plastic, but much more solid and a bit smaller and lighter. Note that the F65 can't use its light meter with non-CPU lenses from the manual focus era.

Verdict: if you have a Nikon DSLR and some lenses, even if they're DX lenses, and you have any interest in shooting film, get an F65. It's a great camera and it can be found for next to nothing. And now you have second body for those times where you can't change lenses easily, or you can hand the F65 to someone you don't trust with your expensive DSLR.

Permalink - posted 2014-06-19

Testing 50 mm lenses

▼ Since I got back in the SLR game, I got some additional second hand cameras and lenses. As a result, I'm now the owner of no fewer than five 50 mm lenses. (Well, four 50 mm and one 55 mm.) So I decided to compare them. First an overview, then some testing!

The one on the top left is the 55 mm one that came with my old Petri TTL camera. It's a manual-everything camera with only a light meter needle to show you if your shutter/aperture settings will produce a proper exposure. The last time I used it was the last days of 1999 and the first days of 2000, I think. It still kind of works, but not all that well, and the mercury cells that the light meter needs are no longer sold.

The lens on the top right came with a Praktica camera, probably a BC3. I think my mother borrowed it and dropped it in a pond or something. The Praktica BC3 was still manual focus, but it had an electronic shutter and an aperture priority mode so it can automatically set the shutter speed. The lens has three electrical contacts to talk to the camera. (I also still have a Praktica 70-210 mm zoom and an adapter for M42 lenses, let me know if you want to take any of this off my hands.)

The other three lenses are Nikons:

The one on the left on the second photo is the NIKKOR 50mm 1:2. It's the only one of the five that doesn't have an f/1.8 maximum aperture, but f/2. This is an AI (auto indexing) lens, a type that Nikon sold in the late 1970s and early 1980s. You can tell from the fact that the smallest aperture number (16) is not in orange, in this case it's in blue. This lens came with a Nikon FE that I bought the other day.

The lens in the middle is a Nikon LENS SERIES E 50mm 1:1.8, which came with another FE that I originally bought, but that one didn't work. The lens is fine, though. It's an AIS (improved auto indexing) lens with the orange minimum aperture. It was a low end lens, which probably explains why Nikon didn't bother to include the rabbit ears for compatibility with older cameras, and possibly why it's not deemed worthy of the Nikkor name. A few Nikons from the 1980s and/or 1990s can do shutter priority and program modes with AIS lenses, but both older and newer cameras don't care about the difference between AI and AIS. Unlike its siblings on both sides, the E doesn't have what looks like a built-in lens hood, so it's very small, especially when mounted on my Nikon D7100.

Last but not least, there's the AF NIKKOR 50mm 1:1.8D. This is a lens that I bought new for use with my D90 five years ago. It's the only one of the bunch that is an autofocus lens. Even though it's still sold new today it's an old design; current lenses usually lack an aperture ring. But this one still has both the old mechanical AIS couplings as well as the CPU contacts used by modern cameras, so it works with all Nikon F-mount cameras, although it won't autofocus on lower end digital SLRs.

The tests

With an M42 adapter, I can mount the Petri lens on my D7100, so I tested that one along with the Nikon lenses. I don't have an adapter for Praktica lenses so I couldn't test that one.

I tested at f/1.8 (or f/2) and f/8. I used a manual shutter speed, but I miscalculated the difference between f/1.8 and f/8 so the f/8 shots are darker. Sorry! As I was shooting, the lenses seemed identical. They all suffer from some axial chromatic aberration when focussing using live view with maximum magnification: when out of focus in one direction, the blurry edges are a bit red, in the other direction they're a bit green. The test shots at f/1.8 or f/2 are on the left, the ones at f/8 on the right:

Click the links to see the test shots with the Petri, the f/2 AI, the Series E, and the AF using manual focus, autofocus in live view and normal autofocus, respectively.

The first thing that's obvious is that at f/8, all the lenses are dramatically better. Remember, this is pretty much dead center of the frame, too. The difference will likely be even larger in the corners of the frame. This is a 100% crop, so don't think these lenses are no good wide open, without insane magnification the results still look quite good. Also, using regular AF didn't quite nail the focus. However, the subject was small white text on black in a rather dim room, so don't read too much into that. Interestingly, the Series E lens is the best of the bunch wide open, and perhaps also a hair bitter than the others at f/8. So I guess good things come in small packages.

Permalink - posted 2014-06-17