Been pondering an ultimate system, given semi-limitless funds, for various aspects of photography. (Rest assured, what is considered *ultimate* will DRAMATICALLY differ from one photographic genre to the next.)

I think we are just a few DSLR bodies and lenses away from seeing the *perfect* system from both Nikon and Canon. Yes, image quality and other things will always improve. But that aside, here's what I think the ultimate wedding photographers' kits might look like:

(This post will cover NIKON...)

Bodies:

1.) A Nikon D700s

A non-existent camera body that Nikon hasn't officially made. A D700s would just be a D700 with dual card slots, HD video for those who care, (not critical to me) and MAYBE if we're lucky the newly re-designed D3s sensor which appears to be another leap ahead in high ISO technology... But, the *CRITICAL* element here is the dual card slots, at least for a wedding photographer. I think image safety is very important for once-in-a-lifetime event photography, and if we're talking about an *ultimate* system, it's going to have dual card slots. HD video is, personally, not a major concern. Yes the low-light / shallow depth capability of a full-frame 35mm sensor recording 1080p video is amazing, but if I were to embrace "fusion", I'd still be hiring someone else to shoot the video. They could use a 5D mk2 for all I care, and they sure as heck ain't borrowing my lenses if they shoot video on a Nikon.

Anyways the D700 is already one of the best values in DSLR history, especially for professionals who shoot in low light. It is currently the 2nd in command, behind the similar but updated sensor in the D3s, in high ISO capability. The Canon 5D mk2, 1Ds mk3 and 1D mk4 do come close and are totally competitive, but the Nikon FX sensor is still a few % better if you're a pixel peeper.

But it's more than that; Nikon simply made a well-rounded machine with the D700. They used near-flagship quality construction and nearly all the features and performance are on-par with the flagship D3. The weather sealing, the functionality, and most notably the autofocus module are all within a few % of the flagship performance. Plain and simple, a few steps above any competition in it's price range. And, most importantly, nearly everything a wedding photographer would ever need. 5 FPS without a battery grip, or 8 FPS with, although honestly I can't imagine needing more than ~6 FPS for weddings. *Great* low-light AF performance, and even in my opinion the 12 megapixels is an advantage, for photojournalists. True, when you have a higher megapixel camera you can just turn the resolution down. (at least when you're shooting Canon you have sRAW modes, but not with Nikon.) However Nikon's decision to start with a 12 megapixel sensor in the first place is what gave them the high ISO advantage.

All in all it's a near-perfect camera. For wedding photography at least.

2.) A Nikon D700X(s)

Another mythical camera body, this camera would basically be the current D700, with my wished-for D700s improvements, plus the 24 megapixel D3X sensor instead of the 12 megapixel D3s sensor.

In reality, the ONLY reason I dream of a D700s with 24 megapixels is for those twenty shots on a wedding day where resolution is actually a nice thing. A couple family formals with 10+ people, and the bridal portraits. That's it. I personally like BIG prints, and once you start printing 30" or bigger on a regular basis, more than 12 megapixels is nice to have at your disposal. Not mission-critical and I still make great 40" canvases with 12 megapixels, but this is the *ultimate* system here, remember. Honestly I'd shoot 90% of my wedding photos on a 12 megapixel camera, and just bring out the D700X for the formals etc.

3.) A Nikon D300s.

Finally, a DSLR body that already exists. But what? It's crop sensor you say? I'd still keep it in my bag. Mostly for reasons outlined HERE in my previous blog post that talks about autofocus points and how they are spread out around the viewfinder.

Also however, and this is going to be a point of debate for most, I prefer the crop sensor system when using zoom lenses. Most notably, I DO NOT like how big and heavy and expensive the full-frame 70-200 2.8 lens is, when compared to my wonderful Sigma 50-150 2.8 DC. (a crop sensor ONLY lens) I'm just spoiled by the smaller size and weight.

So, here's one of the key aspects of my general philosophy about what would be the ultimate wedding photography kit: Zooms on crop sensor bodies, and primes on full-frame bodies. Almost exclusively.

But before we get into that, I'll briefly say that the D300s, like the D700 or a mythical D700s, offers a perfect balance of speed, general reliability, and resolution. Although it's at a slight dis-advantage in low-light compared to the D700, I've been shooting with a D300 just fine for three years. (2007-2010) I am different from other photographers in that I actually prefer a little grain in my low-light images, because it harkens back to the days of film when grain was an artistic thing as long as you still had enough image detail and resolution to back it up. I regularly shoot my D300 at ISO 3200, and am very satisfied with the results especially when converted to B&W... Heck I'll even ADD grain to high ISO B&W prints... Anyway, the D300s is a good camera to have in your bag for when you need your focus points to spread out around the viewfinder a bit more.

NOTE: A D700X, at 24 megapixels, might negate this need since 24 megapixels FX crops to about 11 megapixels DX. If they make a D700X, I might relegate my D300 to backup duty. BUt I'd still keep such a camera around for sure; it's just a quality tool that I know I can trust. If for example my entire *main* camera bag were to get stolen or damaged, etc. When traveling to weddings for example, I'd put the D700s and D700X into my carry-on bag, (more on that later) ...and I'd tuck a D300s (or two) into my checked suitcase with a random old lens or two. Just in case...

Now, let's get into lens theory 101...

A D300s would be useful to me if I had a Tokina 11-16 2.8 in addition to my Sigma 50-150 2.8. If ultra-wide isn't your cup of tea and you need mid-range instead, maybe get one of the various 17-50 range 2.8 lenses out there, from either Sigma, Tamron or Tokina. Or the Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX if you're a hardcore Nikon lover and don't care about money. We are after all building the *ultimate* kit. I owned the Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX for a while and it's definitely the most rugged lens in it's range, and also one of the sharpest. Oh and it's one of the few lenses that has the new autofocus technology, which Tamron and Tokina don't have yet but Sigma has in a few models. (HSM)

Then, on full-frame, whatever your favorite go-to prime would be. A 35mm 1.4 if you're an up-close kinda shooter, or a 50mm 1.4, and for the telephoto shooters maybe an 85 1.4 or 105 f/2 or 135 f/2. Personally I'm a bit of a telephoto shooter so I think I'd get 90% of my wedding photos with a prime somewhere in the vicinity of 100mm and as fast as possible without sacrificing focus speed or adding too much weight.

Now, as this relates to Nikon, we have a bit of a problem. Nikon has only just begun to re-vamp it's fast, pro-grade prime lineup. They just recently made a new 50 1.4 AFS, and a new 24 1.4 AFS still hasn't even hit the shelves yet at this time of writing. The Nikon 35 f/1.4 is still an old manual focus lens, (although a GEM) as is the Nikon 50mm f/1.2. And there are debates as to whether Nikon can even engineer an autofocus 50 1.2. (Personally I don't care for f/1.2, it makes the lens a bit too heavy and slow for my tastes...)

EIther way, this is part of the reason why I only say we're CLOSE to the ultimate setup- every sign and rumor indicates that within the next one or two years, we'll see a 35 1.4 AFS from Nikon, and if it's POSSIBLE to engineer a 50 1.2 AFS, they'll do that too.

In the telephoto department Nikon also hasn't updated their primes in forever. The 85 1.4 and 85 1.8 are still AFD lenses, with the screwdriver autofocus, and could stand to get upgraded with all the latest lens coatings and AFS autofocus etc... Although personally that's not mission-critical to me. Beyond 85mm, Nikon's 105 f/2 and 135 f/2 are also borderline ancient. Luckily, on the more professional grade cameras like the D700 or the D3 etc., these lenses still focus lightning quick. I'd purchase one in a heartbeat. But, we're talking about the ultimate kit here, so I'll hope for AFS updates to these lenses soon. Currently the Nikon 105 and 135 primes are "DC", which you can google, and I personally hope they ditch that old technology (slightly reminiscent of soft focusing, but different) and just go for amazing, buttery soft bokeh characteristics and bristling sharpness wide open. I know Nikon could design these lenses in their sleep.

Beyond 135mm, I'm sure the "big name" pros might use the 200 2.0, and personally I think I might really enjoy such a lens if I had the money some day. Put it on the list of things I'll purchase if I have a mid life crisis in 15 years. It would certainly be one of the more extravagant pieces in the ultimate system, and definitely goes against my "small and light" philosophy.

Now, I know this setup is slightly controversial. Many shooters will INSIST on using exclusively full-frame cameras for wedding photography, and I respect that. If you must, get yourself the full-frame Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and lug that beast around. Or for the mid-range, the Nikon 24-70 is actually one of the few full-frame zooms I wouldn't mind having. Or in the wide angle, I know some wedding photojournalists are loving the new and exotic 14-24 2.8, but personally as a landscape shooter I'm a bit addicted to my filter threads and I'd opt for the almost as stellar 17-35 f/2.8... I'm just a clumsy kinda guy who needs protective UV filters on all his lenses.

...But the reason I'd rather have a Tokina 11-16 2.8 and Sigma 50-150 2.8 is simply a matter of shooting style. I wouldn't use these lenses for my bread and butter, so I see no reason to lug around a couple pounds of extra weight. The Sigma 50-150 2.8 is just so small and light, I'm totally spoiled by it compared to it's full-frame equivalent. If I had to buy a full-frame 70-200, it would probably be f/4. Which, again, Nikon doesn't make yet and neither does Sigma. (Canon does, and it's amazingly sharp, and about the same size / weight as the Sigma 50-150...)

Also, I think in event photography there is a factor you can't really quantify- being incognito and not intimidating your subjects. Again, I prefer a lens like the Sigma 50-150 2.8 because it's so small and discrete that I can appear as if I'm just a random wedding guest with a decent camera, as opposed to the hired pro with an obscene, intimidating lens like the 700-200. I just don't like to get all up in people's faces with such a big lens. The Sigma 50-150, especially if you take the hood off, looks almost the same as any kit zoom. (Yet it is 100% solidly constructed, probably mostly all metal, and no externally moving parts...) Oh and by the way, I DON'T ever take my lens hoods off, mind you. Again, I'm clumsy and the plastic lens hood does a lot to protect my gear...

So, I understand this is a point of debate and let's just leave it at that- there are many options in the zoom department. You could shoot a D300s with the Sigma 50-150 2.8, you could shoot a D700(s) with a 70-200 2.8, or you could go light on full-frame and wait for Nikon or Sigma to make a 70-200 f/4... Either way, one of these kits is going to be the ultimate for you.

And if you shoot everything on zooms instead of primes, then by all means skip the whole crop sensor zoom thing and enjoy your 17-35 and 70-200 lenses. It's all about investing the most into the one or two lenses that yield the most important images for you. I talk about this in my "what lenses to buy for wedding photography" article.

Lastly, let's talk about flashes. The SB900 is awesome, but again I'm personally all about lightweight and compact. I'd prefer the SB800 90% of the time. In an ultimate kit, I'd say 3-5 SB800's would be awesome. More than enough firepower to light any portrait or dance floor... And if I had so many SB800's, I could just leave them in whatever mode I needed, and never have to go into that annoying SET menu. (Which is part of what makes the SB900 so useful; its physical switch for commander / remote modes.) If for some reason the thought of owning five flashes doesn't excite you, and you'd rather have just one or two flashes, I suppose the SB900 is a better choice.

Ahh, what about macro and other specialty lenses?

Again, a reason for me to keep my D300s around- The crop-sensor fisheye lens is nice and small, and if I'm only ever going to use a fisheye lens once or twice per wedding, if at all, I have no reason to spend the extra space / weight / money on the full-frame version. The Nikon 10.5 DX fisheye is a great choice if you just love that fisheye look.

MACRO is a can of worms. So many users absolutely insist on sticking with Nikon-only, and quite honestly when it comes to macro lenses I see little value in Nikon's macro lineup. They're all just a little bit more expensive than the equally sharp, equally rugged alternatives from Sigma / Tamron / Tokina. In the 100mm range, I'd certainly prefer any of the alternatives to the Nikon 105 2.8 VR macro. Because honestly, macro doesn't need autofocus or stabilization. I shoot all my wedding day macro shots from a tripod with a manual focus Tamron 90mm f/2.5 (a very rare lens, actually)

However, if you plan to use such a lens for other purposes, the Nikon 105 2.8 Macro is a great buy. Stabilized, it's almost as good as an 85 1.4 and has a bit more reach. If your subject is holding still, you can probably shoot at even slower shutter speeds than an 85 1.4 might allow. Personally though, I'd much rather see Nikon make a 135 f/2 VR, just because I'm a bit of a telephoto shooter. I love what the 85 1.4 does on a crop sensor, which is almost 130mm.

But, we were talking about macro. Again, a reason I keep my crop-sensor D300 around- It gives me a full 12 megapixels at 1.5x crop, so my Tamron 90mm f/2.5 turns out to give me the "reach" of a 135mm. Either way, macro (and any other specialty lenses) are a personal preference item. Suffice it to say that whatever your preference, the ultimate system can be had.

Oh, and why not a D3s / D3X?

A bit overkill for wedding photography. If you're a hardcore photojournalist, love your vertical grips, and need that last bit of performance edge that a flagship offers, then go for it. Personally however I don't always shoot with vertical grips, and I think that as a wedding photographer it MIGHT be critical. Specifically, when I fly to an out of town wedding I have to carry-on my camera gear, and I prefer to use a camera bag small enough to fit under an airline seat. I'm paranoid of being the last person onto a full plane and having to check my over-head bag. Which, if it contained $15,000 worth of gear, would be a non-option. So, short story long, I travel without vertical grips so that I can fit TWO cameras into my teeny little Tenba messenger bag. (Another reason I don't roll with the 70-200 2.8's. A 70-200 does fit in the Tenba Messenger, but it takes up too much room. I like to be able to pack two bodies, three small/medium lenses and 1-2 flashes into that TINY bag, believe it or not. Also, I like my pop-up flash commanders. A lot. ...Ergo, no D3s / D3X for me, even with a limitless budget.

Anyway that, in a nutshell, (cuz I'm definitely nuts) is what I see as the ultimate Nikon wedding kit. Here's a breakdown of exactly how I'd set things up:

* D700s with my go-to candid / portrait lens, probably an 85 1.4 AFS, 105 f/2 AFS, or 135 f/2 AFS. My personal choice would be a 35 1.4, 85 1.4, and 135 f/2 VR. That'd be the ULTIMATE bread-and-butter kit system
(The currently produced D700, 85 1.4 AFD, 105 f/2 AFD, or 135 f/2 AFD would do just fine...)

* D700x with my preferred formal portrait lens for family formals or bridal portraits. 35 1.4 AFS probably for family formals, (or the Nikon 24-70, if I decided to get that, as a general purpose lens for when 35 isn't wide enough when there are a ton of people...) OR, I'd use the 35 1.4, 85 1.4 or 135 f/2 when shooting just the bride and groom.

* D300s with 2-3 zooms, currently the Tokina 11-16 2.8 is the reigning champ in wide angle sharpness if you need f/2.8, or maybe the Nikon 12-24 if you need the extra range on the 24mm end, if you can live with f/4) ...and the Sigma 50-150 2.8 is my go-to baby in the tele department.
(Or, if your style calls for full-frame zooms, The D700(s) with a 17-35 2.8 AFS and/or 24-70 2.8 AFS, plus the beastly 70-200 2.8. Or the non-existent 70-200 f/4, if you're me and value weight savings. Either way, that's the final piece of the ultimate kit.)

A responsible wedding photographer with "near-limitless funds" should always have two, or at least THREE camera bodies with them at a wedding, preferably broken up into more than one camera bag. Hey, it happens, some punk walks in off the street, and as long as they're dressed nice nobody will question them at least long enough for them to walk over to your rolling camera bag, and slip right back out with it. So, three FX D700-ish bodies, or two FX bodies and a D300s, or if you're traveling and extremely paranoid, two D700s/x bodies on your person and two D300s bodies plus a couple lenses in your checked luggage. Maybe have an old 50 1.8 laying around, plus your old 2.8 DX zooms, just in case. (Considering that, in my carry-on bag, I'd have two bodies, a 35 1.4 AFS, 85 1.4 AFS, 135 f/2 AFS VR, a flash or two and a laptop...)

Am I forgetting anything? Let me know if I am. And feel free to debate / input to your geeky heart's content!

Take care,
=Matt=

I last blogged about this in 2008, and unfortunately much hasn't changed since then. We've seen quite a few new DSLR's released, both professional and amateur, and as I suspected, Both Nikon and Canon (and others) have not yet been able to spread out the AF points in their full-frame DSLR bodies. We have yet to see the Canon 5D mk3, but I'm betting that at most it will have Canon's new 21 point AF module found in the 7D, which will be the same physical size and therefore SMALLER in the full-frame viewfinder compared to the crop-frame viewfinder. Allow me to demonstrate what Canon's 1.6x and 1.0x viewfinders look like, with the diamond arrangement AF points in their advanced-amateur & semi-pro camera bodies:

What you are seeing is an outline of how far the focus points spread out in the viewfinder. The Canon 40D / 50D / 7D focus point spread is the larger diamond, and the Canon 5D / 5D mk2 is the smaller diamond.

It's a similar situation with the Canon 1.0x and 1.3x flagship bodies:

And, it is a similar situation with Nikon's 1.5x and 1.0x bodies:

Then, just to get REALLY provocative, here's some fightin' words: The 5-series Canons versus the 300 series Nikons-

(I just recently twittered a potentially offensive statement- the fact that I notice quite a large majority of images made with 5-series Canons have their subjects placed dead-center. I see this with practically every photographer who owns a 5-series Canon, so don't think I'm singling YOU out...)

The bottom line (the point I want to make) is that, unfortunately, full-frame sensors are NOT perfection. Despite their huge advantages in low light and familiar angle of view with full-frame lenses, they do have a disadvantage or two. Focus point spread is one of the key issues.

Each time a new full-frame camera comes out, I hope with all my might that either Nikon OR Canon will spread out their AF points, but they haven't yet. In my blog entry back in 2008, I pondered a few reasons why that might be:

It is a technical limitation caused by the angle at which light hits a full-frame sensor. On full-frame at wider angles, light hits the sensor at quite an angle sometimes, and I guess this kills the autofocus accuracy. The crop-sensor lenses however usually receive light at a better (perpendicular) angle, so they can AF correctly even at the apparent edge of the frame, since it's not nearly the edge of the true full frame...

This and a few other laws of physics / optics (whatever) are certainly the culprits, otherwise they'd be putting AF sensors right to the very corners of our viewfinders.

...Now, the last bit of discussion is the tough one, the one that nobody wants to talk about. The reason that Chenin Boutwell switched to Nikon recently and now sings the praise of the Nikon D700. Let's buckle up and open this can of worms!

Basically, on ALL cameras the center AF point is the most powerful, the most accurate, and the one you should always use if you CAN. Of course that's quite limiting, creatively. Fortunately, there are something called "cross-type focus points". (I explain this all at my exposure, metering and autofocus workshop) ...Your center AF point is always cross-type, and depending on which camera you have there are other cross-type AF points around the viewfinder for you to use and they are quite accurate.

Canon's 1-series bodies are the best in this respect, the outer rim of AF points is EXTREMELY accurate. Canon's pro-series AF system has two concentric circles of cross-type AF points, and on the 1.3x crop you can pretty much focus on ANY subject and almost perfectly follow the rule of thirds. (Scroll up and have a look at the diagram)

Nikon's 51 point AF system is also great, but their cross-type AF points are clumped in the center in three columns of five AF points. That central area is incredibly accurate, and Nikon wins in some tests for low-light accuracy and tracking with the D3 / D3s AF. However, the off-center focus points to the left and right are not cross-type, and are slightly less accurate. Since they're so close together you can group nine points together to "aide" in focusing, which really works well if your subject isn't sprinting towards you.

Canon's advanced amateur 1.6x crop bodies, the 40D and 50D, have all nine cross-type AF points in a diamond pattern. All 21 AF points on the 7D are cross-type, too. Again remember that the center AF point is always the most accurate, but an off-center focus point that is cross-type is your next best bet and if you use good AF technique you can get at least 50% or more of your shots perfectly in focus.

However, last (and possibly least) comes the 5-series Canons. Quite frankly the equivalent of a Sputnik in today's high-tech world of autofocus. Its design is literally based on the 20D and 30D from 2004 and 2006, with a few extra "secret" AF points added around the center point to help out in low light.

Thus the can of worms discussion. Is a 5-series good enough for a professional to use and trust? Apparently so, because hundreds of thousands of professionals around the world used both the 5D and the 5D mk2 with amazing results. A tougher but still obvious question: Is it *optimal*? Decidedly not. I've shot professionally with both the 5D mk1 and mk2, and I can honestly say that using the D300 and D700, my standards have simply been spoiled. I could make do with a 5-series, but I wouldn't want to. So what do you do about it?

Well first of all, in all honesty the off-center points on the 5D mk2 aren't that bad if you know how to use them. I've used the mk2 many times, and with the proper technique you can get many perfectly focused shots. It just takes a little bit more attention to technique than other cameras might. Which is a good thing; it keeps your skills sharp. There's nothing worse than having a camera so good that you get sloppy and start cutting corners technically.

Or, you can focus + re-compose. Use the center AF point to focus, and then re-compose before you shoot. This requires a thorough understanding of the different AF modes on your camera and maybe the decision to use the rear AF-ON button. (Wonderful tool for shooting action, by the way. If you ever bump into me and want to know how it works, I'd be happy to show you. Or you can wait for another exposure / metering / autofocus workshop.

Focus + re-compose has it's limitations, however, and is nearly impossible to do if a subject is moving. Or if you like shallow depth and often find yourself shooting at f/1.4 or f/1.2, you can pretty much count on only ever getting 1-2 shots in focus for every 5-10 that you click. (If you're shooting standing up at close distances. Again, this is best discussed visually in person...)

Therefore, LOTS of 5-series images end up getting composed with a dead-center subject. This looks cool once every now and then when you're going for the "rules are meant to be broken" thing. But at the end of the day it's still a creative limit.

There is HOPE for the future though. All signs point to a forthcoming 5D mk3, and it should AT LEAST have Canon's new 7D AF module. Even though it will still cover approximately the same area as previous 5-series bodies, it'll be a dramatic improvement. Or maybe Canon could go all the way and make a semi-pro body that has the 45-point AF system for under $3K. But now we're definitely getting into wishful thinking territory

While we're thinking wishfully, HOPEFULLY Canon or Nikon will spread out their AF points on full-frame bodies in general. Whoever does it first doesn't matter to me, Canon or Nikon, because if one sets the bar then the other will have to rise to that bar sooner or later.

Lastly, I wish Nikon would at least re-arrange their cross-type AF points. This would be awesome; I don't know if anyone has ever used the D2H or D2X but WOW those off-center cross-type AF points are snappy. Almost as good as the Canon off-center cross-type AF points...

Sadly I don't know if this will ever happen. We'll probably be stuck with the current AF point spread and configuration for at least another generation or two. Partly to blame is this whole HD video craze, which is certainly the #1 R&D priority right now. I understand how "fusion" is going to change our industry, and I appreciate the amazing new low-light video capabilities, but I'm sad to think that other matters, more true to traditional photography, are going to take a back burner for a while.

...So, all this to say- such a dramatic difference between crop and full-frame cameras is one of the main reasons I continue to shoot with my Nikon D300. And I will continue to shoot with it even after I eventually add a full-frame D700 to my bag. Unless I need that extra bit of low-light performance, the D300 suits me perfectly.

DISCLAIMER: If you own a 5-series Canon, don't think I'm insulting your camera OR your work. I'm just a camera geek who loves a good discussion of pros and cons. And if you shoot with a 5-series but DO manage to shoot lots of off-center compositions, and/or get a high number of perfectly focused shots, many kudos to you! I never said it was impossible, I'm just discussing the degree of difficulty.

Take care,
=Matt=

I've always wanted one of the "indestructible" cameras for a P&S. It just seemed logical for me to get something with that title, considering how cheaply constructed MOST P&S consumer cameras are, and how rough I am on my professional DSLR gear with solid magnesium alloy and aluminum construction. It seems like EVERY person I've ever known who owned a P&S digital camera has had their die on them due to getting sand in the lens, or dropping it on a rock, in a river, etc. etc. Just very discouraging for this adventure seeker.

Anyways, DPReview finally did a test of the current generation of waterproof, shockproof, etc.-proof cameras on the market.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q209waterproofgroup/

The winner was the Canon D10, with the Pentax W60 as a close runner up. I think I'll go with the Pentax, considering it goes to 28mm wide angle and the Canon only goes to 36mm. (Which is HARDLY wide, for those of you who know your focal lengths...)

Alright, that's all I have time for right now. We're in the heat of wedding photography season, I've got work to do!

Take care,
=Matt=

Sorry, fellow camera geeks, for being so totally GONE the past few months! I kinda got married. So I've been a little occupied.

However, the time has come for me to flex my geek-rant muscles again.

Today, I want to write about a revolution / evolution that I think digital photography has had coming since it's birth...

Basically, in the days of film you effectively had only TWO means of controlling your exposure. Aperture and shutter speed. If you wanted anything else, you had to change film, and use a film with a different ASA / ISO. And your options in that respect were VERY limited. Most films were ISO 100, 200, or 400, and usually the 400 speed films were the ghetto kodak gold stuff you buy for "running-stick-figure-mode" on your camera. And B&W was your only option if you wanted to get *quality* out of ISO 800 or better. And forget about hardcore landscape photography. If you meant business, you were at ISO 50, or 64, or 25, depending on the "era"...

Okay so my point is, Digital lets you change your ISO between each and every picture, right?

HOWEVER, it continues to retain that "secondary" status below aperture and shutter speed. THOSE exposure controls get their own full-time command dials! ISO is still treated as that "other" setting you have to change, like white balance or image quality, etc...

At the birth of digital, this went un-noticed. Digital ISO was in fact still a crutch. Professional results couldn't be obtained above ISO 200, or above 400, or above 800, as each generation rolled by. Any serious digital photographer shot at their base ISO 90% of the time.

Enter the 2007, 2008 and 2009 generations. The Nikon FX series is the best example- CLEAN ISO 6400, use-able for B&W AND color printing at small / medium print sizes. That's a useable SIX stops of light, for a D3, or SEVEN on the D3X, if you count ISO 50 / 100 "LO-1"

Do you realize that is as many stops of control as the average f/2.8 zoom?

The point I'm getting to is, it's time for ISO to play a more important role in exposure control. It's time for ISO to be (able to be) on a command dial FULL-TIME... In so many low-light conditions, for example, I NEVER touch my aperture, I just leave it wide open the entire time. Why not let me use that command dial to change my ISO any time I want? Right now on my Nikons I have to reach up with my left hand, hold down a button, and dial my ISO while all other controls are locked out, and pictures can't be captured.

WHY?

We've been making baby-steps in the right direction, with Auto-ISO. Nikon has slowly given more and more control to it's Auto-ISO function. At first (D200) you could only go up to a certain shutter speed minimum, and you could NOT access the "HI" ISO levels. Then (D300) you could go to any ISO you wanted, and the ISO would actually go DOWN if you maxed your shutter speed. And now with a firmware update, Nikons can dictate ANY minimum shutter speed.

Let's take that next step! Maybe we don't need to add a third command dial, but letting photographers quickly put ISO onto a command dial full-time would be awesome. And, when changing my ISO the normal way via an ISO button, I should be able to toggle Auto-ISO via the sub-command dial that is currently not used when changing ISO.

I dunno exactly how it could / should be engineered. All I know is that in a dark theater, I can go 2,000 exposures without touching my aperture, yet I need to change my ISO incessantly. Sometimes automatic exposure is fine, and so I shoot in A mode with Auto-ISO on. But then sometimes I need manual exposure all of a sudden, and I'm out of luck because even though it is effortless to go from A to M, I'm stuck with my Auto-ISO on and therefore my exposure is still automatic. And I gotta go into a menu to kill Auto-ISO, and then the moment I needed to capture has probably passed.

Alright, I'm done pondering. This is something I've written about regularly, and I guess I'll keep bringing it up until camera companies catch on. Digital is here, people, and it is changing the way we think about exposure...

Take care,
=Matt=

Obviously NOT for biblical reasons, Pretec (a pioneer in the world of flash memory technology) has just announced a 666x line of compact flash memory cards. Yeah. *shrug* Hey, I'd buy one!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030602preteccfcard666x.asp

They're going to have up to 64 GB memory cards, which I think is AWESOME! As I've said before- I wouldn't dream of putting a memory card that huge into a single-slot camera and trusting that many images to just one card. HOWEVER, such high-capacity cards make a PERFECT pocket backup, especially at such high data transfer rates. (Transferring 64 GB of data at 80X, yeah now that's my idea of an exciting night, ya know?)

Anywho, I still envision an ultimate backup workflow: When shooting any photos of extreme importance, I'd have two options:

If shooting a D3 or other camera that can support simultaneous writing to two cards, I could simply put a 64 GB card in one slot, and in the other I'd use whatever smaller capacity cards I feel comfortable with. (Currently at 12 megapixels I feel comfortable using 4 GB cards...) That way, at the end of the photo shoot I could simply remove the 64 GB memory card and slip it into my pocket, or anywhere else safe.

If shooting any other camera that does not allow simultaneous saving of images to separate cards, I would have to simply download all my cards at the end of the day / photo shoot, and then re-load them back to the 64 GB memory card, then putting it somewhere safe. That would give you *3* copies of your images before you even get home from an event- your backup memory card, your laptop, and your preferred memory cards. (formatted after download of course, but you can run image recovery to retrieve images off a formatted card if necessary...)

Anyways, I'm sure that just like when Pretec first announced a mere 80x 12 GB card back in 2004, we'll be paying a ridiculous amount for such a card. Even extrapolating the cost of my 305X 4 GB cards at $40 each, that's over $1200. OUCH. Considering you can get a 80 or 120 GB external drive for just a couple hundred bucks, they might have to charge as little as $5 per GB in order for such a memory card to become worthwhile in this particular backup application... (Of course I don't know any hard disk drives that can write data at 100 MB/sec and are the size of a matchbook, do you?)

=Matt=

...As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed. Now, witness the firepower of this FULLY ARMED AND OPERATIONAL BATTLE STATION!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hamwithcam/2214313819/

(Link courtesy of my good friend, Brandon Perron from the [b] school...)

=Matt=

Over the years, zoom lenses have evolved into certain "useful" focal lengths. 28-80, 35-70, 28-70, 24-70, 28-105, 24-120...

Basically the theory is, it's GOOD to have a mid-range lens that can cover both wide angles AND telephoto at the same time.

This may be great for photojournalism, and I'm sure that many pros are totally happy with their 24-70 2.8... (At least Nikon pros are LOVING theirs. Resolves perfectly even on 24 megapixels, unlike a certain "L" 24-70...)

But I digress. Most generic event photographers like that focal range; that's my point.

However, I shoot some pretty odd-ball types of photography, and let me tell you- sometimes, especially when you're shooting from a fixed distance and can't get any closer OR back up, ...you just wish you could have different focal ranges. So I'm going to theorize...

(Just for simplicity's sake, we'll talk ONLY about pro-grade, f/2.8 zooms)

Instead of the progression on the wide end of mid-range zooms, what if we went back to 35mm and worked on the telephoto end? Would you buy a 35-120mm 2.8? It could go perfectly with a 17-35 2.8...

Or how about breaking away from the current telephoto standard of 70-200mm... Would you buy a (full-frame) 50-150 2.8? And then, moving backwards from there, what if you could buy a 20-50 2.8?

SO, different people have different shooting styles. Not to mention the different shooting conditions! Oh, and throw in different sensor sizes too, while you're at it. This is largely what prompted me to wonder what it would be like to have these different range lenses- I work with DX, so I have an abundance of lenses to chose from in both camps- I can use the 17-55 if I want a 25-80mm equivalent, or I can use a 24-70 on DX and get about 35-105...

...And a lot of the time, yeah, I just love the "standard" focal ranges. But every now and then, both when shooting events AND portraits, ...I find myself changing lenses way too often, wishing I had a mythical 35-120 2.8, or a 50-150... (in full-frame, that is...)

...O well. Just an idle ponder. I know that Nikon has FAR more work to do in their lens department before they even dream of doing something this crazy!

=Matt=

Canon just rocked the prime world again. Not only have they announced two new prime lenses, a 17mm TSE and a 24mm TSE mk2, ...but they have also re-designed the lens construction to allow tilting and shifting to be rotated independently of each other.

Meaning, unlike any other lens for 35mm use, you can now tilt / shift in "opposite" directions.

The sad thing is- Nikon JUST RECENTLY announced an entire new line of TS lenses, 24mm, 45mm and 85mm, and on ALL of these lenses if you want to switch the directions of tilting and shifting (with respect to each other) you literally have to take the lens apart with a screwdriver and rotate the lens mecahnics / elements yourself.

Did I mention that one of the new Canons is a SEVENTEEN MILLIMETER???

Sorry Nikon. You just got owned... I'm not even going to bother mentioning the new 35mm AFS f/1.8 DX now. Not until you come out with a REAL lens for PMA...

=Matt=

[EDIT] Wow. These lenses look nuts. Here's a forum post showing the 17 and 24 TSE lenses' MTF charts ROCKING the 17-40 L and 24-70 L's MTF charts. Now keep in mind that MTF charts are made wide open, and the TSE charts are probably not made with any movements involved. But either way, that is SHAAAAARRRRRRPPPPPP!!!!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=31040134