Wordpress from now on...

All, I will probably very rarely be updating this blog from this point. Check my new blog--with every entry here imported--at http://brianricephoto.wordpress.com for new posts.

First weekend out with the D700

So here are some sample shots of the Nikon D700 in low light situations, at very high ISOs. Personally I’m blown away by the image quality the D7oo produces, at all ISOs but especially the higher ISOs. Even on the Canon 5DM2 I was reluctant to shoot above 3200 ISO in these circumstances; on the Nikon I have practically no need to reduce the noise at 3200. And images at 6400 and above, all the way to 12,800 were progressively grainy, but in a much more appealing way than the Canons. I would never use anything above 6400 ISO on the 5DM2, and rarely 6400. With the D700 I have no problem using 12,800 for online usage.

Tracii Guns (foreground) of LA Guns, ISO 3200

100% crop of above pic, ISO 3200

The Nikon D700

So I've had the D700/24-70 for a couple of days now. Haven't done any jobs with it yet; just been putting it through its paces shooting things around the house. This weekend I'll be taking it on three different shoots, so I'm looking forward to that.

Justice is coming.

The Switch from Canon to Nikon is in progress

So I have, indeed, committed to switching from Canon to Nikon, recently. After further reflection/internal debate/countless budget calculations, I ultimately decided on the Nikon D700 paired with the Nikon 24-70 2.8. Not the cheapest scenario--believe me, I tried really hard NOT to decide on this solution--but having shot with the Canon 5DM2 for the past year and a half and Canon's own 24-70...I ultimately realized I couldn't walk away from the stunning image quality that both a full frame sensor offers and that the pro grade 24-70 2.8 can deliver. It's like the difference between HD TV and standard antennae broadcast. A crop sensor camera is certainly pretty good and more than acceptable...but it's like comparing a brand new Honda to a brand new Jaguar.

Nikon d300s Impressions from a Canon 7D and 5DM2 shooter.

I've rented the Nikon d300s this past week, along with the Nikon 17-55 2.8, the SB-900 flash and the SB-600 flash (to experiment with off-camera lighting). I've been considering a switch from Canon to Nikon for a long time. Here is a link to some pics I shot with the Nikon. Below are my impressions:

My Hate/Love/Hate/Love relationship with my Canon 7D

Over on the Flickr forums I've posted about some of the autofocusing issues I've had with my Canon 7D. This has definitely been the most challenging camera I've owned. To sum up the link above, my 7D had back-focusing/front-focusing issues and I ultimately sent it in to Canon repair twice. In that time I became extremely frustrated to the point where I considered seriously switching to Nikon and at the very least just get rid of the 7D. (My other camera is the 5D Mark II.) What made it even more frustrating was how great the 7D feels to hold, unlike previous Canon dSLRs, so to handle such a great ergonomic camera yet get crap photos was maddening. Having to ship it to Canon twice and wait two weeks for it to ship, get repaired and then wait for it to get mailed back was also maddening. That was from February to early April, and finally Canon seemed to get it right.

Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC versus Canon 17-55 2.8 IS

Two weeks ago I rented the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, and am now renting the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC. I haven't actually taken the Tamron out into the field yet, but first impressions testing it around the house are very favorable. Yes, 2.8 is softer compared to 4.0, but definitely nothing a little sharpening can easily fix without degrading the image quality. I also wouldn't say it's prohibitively soft in its own right; in fact it's only apparent when you compare it to 4.0 and higher. Compared to similar test shots taken when I had the Canon, I can't honestly say there's too much of a difference; maybe the Canon is sharper...but $500 sharper??? Hmmm.

So that's the big question. I'm finding the Tamron online for $620 while the cheapest Canon is $1100. Don't get me wrong; the Canon was awesome, and the Tamron is a lot louder when focusing, especially with the VC turned on, which can be disconcerting, especially when it sounds like it's "unwinding" after you take a shot. It seems slower than the Canon, but so far I haven't been in a situation where the low light will challenge it, so I won't find that out for a bit.

Lots of visitors

My website at brianricephoto.com had over 41,000 views in the last 30 days (April 9th through May 9th). Perpetual Change at the Bsider in April topped all galleries at 3867 hits. That's how many photos have been viewed by people not including myself (otherwise it'd probably be double that).

The ZEROS in Parkville, Missouri

Full gallery here.

Frans Photo Shoot, April 1st, 2010

For this shoot I used the Canon 5DM2 with the 24-70 2.8 L lens, the 580EX2 flash as the master controlling two 430 flashes (an EX and EX2) on stands, the key light being one of the 430s with a medium sized soft box while the other flash was gridded and used as an rim/back light. The 580 flash head was turned off and only used as a controller. Radiopoppers were used to remotely control the off camera flashes. 

Full gallery including behind the scenes and post-shoot drinks at:

http://briantium.smugmug.com/Galleries/Miscellaneous/Frans-Photo-Shoot/11698710_dXWpr#825502612_LuT2p

Lenses

I'm interested in hearing others thoughts on the kind of lenses you use to shoot. For the past year I've shot with the Canon 24-70 2.8 L lens on the 5DM2 and the 5D. Before that I split time between the Canon 24-105 4.0L IS and the Tamron 17-50 2.8 on a 30D. I think all have been great, although the Tamron is a touch slower focusing...although both 5Ds are pitifully slow in low light. (I also have a Tamron 70-200 2.8 which is the slowest focusing of all my lenses, and a Canon 50mm 1.4.) That slowness on the 5Ds is a big part of what led me to replacing my old 5D with the 7D (and all the focusing issues and trips to the repair center it entailed, although I think it's finally fixed; even after a month I'm still leery of giving it a final thumbs up even though it probably is fine now).

One thing's for sure, the 24-70 and the 7D don't seem to like each other. While it focuses well at 50mm to 70mm, at 24mm it tends to be out of focus (it works great on the 5DM2 at all lengths). I brought my Tamron 17-50 out of retirement for a test run and it seemed to do pretty good. But one thing that's really been in the back of my mind is Image Stabilization; none of my current lens lineup has it (I sold the 24-105 4.0 IS to finance getting the 24-70). I've considered switching back to the 24-105 but now that I've got a 7D I'm considering instead either the 17-50 2.8 IS or the 15-85 IS...although I wouldn't be able to use either on the 5DM2.

So I've rented the 15-85 IS. After a few preliminary test shots at home it seems great; will find out more in the field this weekend on a couple of shoots. The main downsides are that it's not a vaunted L lens nor a fixed aperture (as you zoom from 15 to 85 the aperture narrows from 3.5 to 5.6, or more than twice as less light reaches the sensor with the corresponding increase in the depth of field), although it is a more expensive lens than two of Canon's own L lenses (the 70-200 f4 and the 17-40 f4).

But I got to thinking about how I shoot. The majority of pro photogs rely (I imagine) on prime lenses. They deliver superb quality and open WAY wide open to up to f1.2 (or up to 8 times more light than a lens at 5.6). But I've never been much of a fixed length shooter and have always felt constrained by not being able to zoom in and out as I like, which is why I always get ansty to remove the 50mm whenever I'm using it ("Okay, did I get the shot I want? Good, let's switch back to the 24-70 and relax and have fun now"). Same feeling I had when I owned a 10-22 ultra wide lens, or rented the 17-40 or 16-35 and tried using either as an ultrawide lens on my 5DM2.

But the 15-85 IS. Same feeling I had as when I rented the 24-105 again for my 5DM2. LOVED the flexibility and convenience of being able to zoom in and out at such a great range. Almost enough to overlook not being able to open up the aperture to 2.8. Damn close. Sometimes I still think about it. I think I can live with a zoom lens not going to 2.8. If I like the 15-85 after this weekend I might follow through and sell my Tamron 17-50 to help pay for one and use my 7D more often (remember I got the 7D for it's better autofocusing system, and if I can finally accept that Canon's repair center really did fix my copy this time it may become my lead camera, at least for party pics).

When I shoot party pics I like to drag the shutter...as low as 1/8 to 1/15 if I can get away with it. Image Stabilization will enable me to do that with greater confidence as opposed to not having it and hoping the flash freezes the main subject enough that any camera shake is negligible with the 24-70. Another thing I realized is that in shooting group pics, usually from five to seven feet away, it's just not viable to shoot at 2.8 (let alone anything faster) because inevitably somebody in the shot, usually someone at one of the ends, is going to be out of focus, so I've found myself setting my aperture to 4.0 or 5.6 or even 8.0...so the main point of having a 2.8 is kind of moot (and even a cheaper consumer lens produces good quality stopped down). And having to drag the shutter to compensate is alleviated by IS, to say nothing of cranking up the ISO to 1600 or even more (which I've lived off of since the Rebel XT) to help out. (Although I've recently settled on staying at 1600 if I can help it, even though the 5DM2 in particular is really good at 3200 and even 6400.)

So I'm going to find out for sure this weekend just how well the 15-85 IS works out on the 7D. Should be interesting.

UPDATE: Well, as it turns out I just can't live without a fixed 2.8 on my zoom lens. While the range on the 15-85 was fine, it drove me up the wall to be stopped down at 5.6 zoomed in. While my reasoning above in support of the 15-85 bore out somewhat (shooting groups at smaller apertures), being able to open up to 2.8 for ambient shots without switching lenses is critical for me. So after I sent the 15-85 back I subsequently rented the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS and so far it's awesome. And I realized that if it's just an indivual or even a couple, I can shoot them at 2.8 and if I mind my depth of field they can both still be in focus (ie, keep them on the same focal plane). And the bokeh on the 17-55 is gorgeous. Chances are I will also rent the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC (Tamron's version of image stabilization) to compare. I'd prefer the Canon, but it's nearly twice as much ($1100+) as the Tamron (about $620).

The rest of my Top Ten Photos of 2009

Okay, so I never finished posting my Top Ten Photos of 2009 to this blog. It was actually easier and more convenient to just post everything to my facebook photo page (http://www.facebook.com/brianricephoto). Here they all are. If you want to read my thoughts from each photo you can go to the facebook page above and click on the Notes tab to read them. (If you're not on facebook, well, um...I'll have to get back to you on that...)

10) TIE

9)

8) TIE

7) TIE

 

6)

  

5)

4)

 

3)

2)

1)