Yes. Yes. Yes.

I simply must go to Gloucester.  Really, I must.

Here's why.

The question is when and how.  We have no automobile.  We hear the French are still a little upset at the English over the 100 years war and the impending Waterloo celebrations this summer.  Ugh.

Ok.  I need to plot and plan.  Yes.  Indeed I do.

[I'm teasing, of course, about the Troubles between the English and French.]

A little truth...

Here's yet another in a growing list of videos that make the obvious points that can oh so obviously be made.

A great quote...

A photographer went to a socialite party in New York. As he entered the front door, the host said 'I love your pictures - they're wonderful; you must have a fantastic camera.' He said nothing until dinner was finished, then: 'That was a wonderful dinner; you must have a terrific stove.' 

- Sam Haskins

Updating my Big Bird kit...

One of the challenges of selling all my Canon DSLR bodies and lenses to downsize into mirrorless was answering the question: What to do about birds?

Sony A6000 + LA-EA4 adapter + Tamron 150-600mm "Bigron"

I love taking photographs of birds.  When we lived in the States, Jude and I would visit parks and wetlands in search of ducks, small birds, geese, cranes, and large birds of prey.

The setup I had back in the States included a 70-200 f/4L, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L (deemed the Dust Pump by netizens), and that amazing 300-800mm Sigma EX HSM f/5.6 super zoom.  The 70-200L was for birds very close to the camera.  The 100-400L was for fast movers in flight and the 300-800EX HSM was for, well nearly everything, including birds in flight (BIF).

Coming to France I learned how impossible it was to carry the 13pound Sigmonster anywhere.  I loved the "reach" but there was no way to haul it to where the birds are (Rambouillet, Sceau, etc.).

The 3.5pound 100-400L was nearly perfect, but... it lacked the "reach" I was looking for on the long end.

The 70-200L was simply too short for anything, even photographing sports cars on the streets of Paris during one of the bi-annual Traversee.

Moving everything to Sony mirrorless seemed foolish.  This is why I hung on to my 7D/Dust Pump kit.

Then one day I got sick, lost my mind, and sold the 7D.  The Dust Pump was put up for sale, too.

In my dull daze of illness I found was an article over on Luminous Landscape.  The solution Michael used in Antartica was a Sony A7II, Sony LA-EA4 A to E-mount adapter,  and Tamron 150-600mm f/5-f/6.3 in the Sony A-mount.  His target?  Penguins leaping out of the water.  I couldn't imagine a more challenging scenario.  He didn't know where they were coming from.  He didn't know how far away they'd be.  So he had to be ready and he needed to trust the AF system would be fast enough to capture what he was looking for.  It sounded like what I was facing.

I ordered a lens and adapter from Amazon.  Please remember, I was sick when I made this decision. I had no idea what I was getting.  My new birding solution was based purely on Michael's Antartica experience.

  The "Bigron" at 150mm
The "Bigron" racked out to 600mm
Today I have everything in hand.  The lens and LA-EA4 are finally here.  We still have a copy of that left-leaning Canard Enchaine so I taped a couple pages to the wall and pointed my lenses at it to see what I could see.

First, a comment about the LA-EA4 adapter.  It comes with a translucent mirror and the AF components built into the body of the adapter.  The AF system does not require "internal" power and is driven off the camera's power source.  There was nothing to do but snap the lens on the front and snap the Sony A6000 onto the other end.  Simple and easy.

A further comment about the LA-EA4 adapter is to note that the in-adapter AF system implements it's own 15 phase-lock AF points.  The camera body recognizes the adapter and provides selections for the in-adapter focus points through the standard menus.  The in-camera AF points are disabled.

The Tamron lens (called the Bigron by some netizens) is just under a pound heavier than the Canon 100-400L.  For BIF a person can remove the tripod collar.  This lightens the rig up a bit, but there's no getting around the fact the Bigron is a slightly bigger beast than the Canon.  Yet the all-up kit weight of the Sony/Adapter/Bigron is less than the Canon 7D/Dust Pump.  

In the hand it all feels very familiar.  The diameter of the Tamron barrels are similar to the Canon L-glass.  The Bigron feels a little heavier up front, and is only marginally heavier over-all than the old Dust Pump.

What's been gained?  I now have a one camera solution for everything I do.  The Sony A6000 camera is very light, very fast (11frames per second at full tilt), and very flexible (I can use it for studio work and birds).  The Tamron has almost 60 percent more reach than the 100-400L Canon (400mm on the lens is actually closer to 380mm).  And the Bigron is a fraction of the weight of the old Sigmonster.

What's been lost?  That incredible Sigmonster.  I LOVED that lens, even if I couldn't take it anywhere.  The Sigmonster was sharp as sharp could be at all focal lengths.

As for image stabilization (IS), well, yes, I do miss that, too.  The Dust Pump had decent IS in the lens where the Sony/Bigron kit presently does not.  The Tamron does not offer IS in their Sony A-mount lens (but it does come with IS in Canon/Nikon mounts).  However, there are rumors of Sony releasing an in-body IS APS-C solution in the A6000-form-factor some day soon.  When that hits the streets I'll have a decent IS solution for all my lenses that I currently work with in mirrorless.


Canon 100-400L Tamron 150-600 Nikon 300 pre-Ai (all with NEX adapters of various kinds)
What also been lost is a very slight bit of AF speed to the old 7D/70-200L combo which was very "snappy" and quick.  The AF speed "feels" quite nearly equal to the 7D/Dust Pump combo.  Though in truth the 7D/100-400L sometimes missed the intended AF point.  Compared to the 7D/Sigmonster AF speed, the Sony/Bigron kit "feels" ever so slightly "snappier."  In short, I think I can live with the Sony/Bigron AF speed, though only time and a few live birds will tell me if this continues to hold true.  Bring on the penguins!!!

Having a look at the image quality, I compared the Bigron against an adapted Canon 100-400L and Nikon 300mm f/4.5 pre-Ai.  The test setup was -

• Sony A6000, ISO100, Aperture Preferred, shutter released using 2 second delay
• Big beefy Manfrotto tripod (the one I use for birding and an 8x10inch film camera, if I had one)
• Manually focused at 14x for 150mm and 300mm focal lengths.  It was easy and, besides, the Canon and Nikon lenses were manual focus on the Sony.  AF was used on the Bigron when shot at 600mm.  Manually focusing that focal length was simply too difficult to do accurately, so I threw in the towel and let the adapter/Bigron do what they were designed to do.  Oh, and I ran out of room, so no attempt was made to match the size of the print at 600mm to the shorter focal-lengths.

The results should be pretty obvious.  The Dust Pump and Bigron do a nice job.  They're sharp and contrasty.  If I had to say which images were actually "sharper", I'd lean toward the Bigron at this (very early) point.  

At 600mm it's interesting to confirm what others have seen with the Tamron.  f/6.3 is slightly soft at that long 600mm focal length.  So... Stop the Bigron down to f/8 and call it good.  Good it is, too.  It seems as sharp at 600mm as the old Sigmonster, and that's saying something.

Note: Make sure you look at the comparison results with the file enlarged to 100 percent to see what I see.

Sadly, I think I ever so slightly missed the focus point on the Nikon 300mm f/4.5 pre-Ai as I've seen sharper images out it than these.  Which points out just how important technique is for gaining every last bit of image quality out of system.  It's not just the lens, it's how you use your entire system that counts.

After Jude and I get feeling better (we're still under the weather for the Late Winter flu bug that's been shared by millions) we'll schedule up a trip out to one of our favorite birding spots to have a look at how well the new kit works.

Times? They are a change'n...

As I submitted in the comment section (though it's yet to be cleared for public consumption) over on Mike Johnson's Online Photographer blog, it doesn't take being Nostradamus to accurately predict the End Days of "traditional" photography.  iOS and Android have won the hearts and minds of casual and "serious" photographers alike and there's no going back.

A friend sent a link to an interesting article on this very topic.  One of my favorite quotes is...

Technology has transformed photos from treasured keepsakes to personal propaganda

This goes some ways to supporting a thought I shared in an early post on the topic.  Cultural narcissism is a driving force behind photography these days.  Anyone can, so anyone does.  To the tune of uploading 1.8BILLION images a day to the internet.  Much the uploads are "selfies" and photos of cats, or so it seems.

In a little more serious article, Vincent Laforet predicts the end of the still camera for everyone but the "pros."

Professional photographers (if they still exist then… and I think many, or to be honest some will) will continue to make photographs with DSLR/ Medium format and perhaps mirrorless still cameras – but the vast majority of photographers will continue the exodus towards smartphones...

The software that is installed on those smartphones and iPhones and what you can do with it supersedes the advantage that any one camera system alone gives you for most of us – professionals will continue to need specialty lenses, lights, and larger megapixels to differentiate themselves from the masses...

I don't think Vincent went far enough.  I believe how we consume images has forever altered the very need for a "pro" to create something for us.  So while specialty lenses might make some of us happy, and sports, nature, and wedding photographers can manage their images "look" and "reach" by carefully choosing a lens, none of this is really, actually desired nor required by our "Look At ME!" culture.

Further, Sony seems to already have this covered.  You can have a fully networked imaging system with Big Pixels _and_ your Favorite Lenses at the same time.  Take a look at the QX1 and see if you don't agree.

It's interesting to see for the vast vast majority of button pushers mobile phones are more than sufficient to create wonderful images.  iOS and Android have become the Canon/Nikon/Fuji/Olympus imaging platforms of olden days.

Honestly?  The "need" for someone hire someone else who can monkey a hugely complex camera to record an event or to advertise a product is going away.  What made "professionals" unique is evaporating right before our eyes.

My prediction is that within 4 years pro photographers who make their livings through image making will be as rare as hens teeth.  Either that or they'll have a cell phone to help do the work.

If you don't believe me, take a look at these images.

[UPDATE: Mike's blog just posted further comments on the topic]

Anatomy of a Phishing Scam

I've been looking for a super zoom for my Sony A6000 and have found an optic that could replace my old Canon 70-200L, 100-400L, and 300-800 Sigmonster.

Last night on Amazon.fr I thought I'd found a good deal.

Tamron Objectif SP xxxx

---

Prix conseillé :	EUR 1 399,00
Prix :	EUR 600

First clue there was a problem?  The price.  If it seems too good to be true, then it is too good to be true.

When I tried to put the item into my Panier, this is the message I received.

Message important

Un problème s'est produit en rapport avec les articles de votre commande (voir ci-dessous pour plus d'informations) : Tamron Objectif SP xxxx...

Désolés, cet article ne peut pas être expédié à l'adresse que vous avez sélectionnée. Plus d'informations. Vous pouvez modifier l'adresse de livraison ou supprimer l'article de votre commande. Vous pouvez également voir si l'article est disponible à l'expédition sur votre adresse auprès d'un autre vendeur.

Then there was the request to contact the seller directly, and that was the second problem.

Hello,
The Tamron Objectif SP xxxx is in new condition ( it just had to be listed as 'Used - Like New' ), comes with all manufacturer  supplied accessories, Europe model,comes with 2 Years Europe warranty. It has not been used. The price is €600.00 - free Europe delivery. The shipping will take 1 - 3 days .My return policy is full money back in 30 days.If you really want to buy, send me your phone number, full name, shipping address and I will contact Amazon asap to process your order.
If you have any questions regarding the product,returning or any questions feel free to ask us.

Thanks

Is it any surprise that I then received a request to transfer money directly to the seller?

Thanks for your order. We want you to buy with confidence anytime you purchase products on Amazon.fr.That is why we guarantee purchases from Amazon Marketplace, Auctions, zShops, and Merchant sellers when you use Amazon Payments. The condition of the item you buy and its timely delivery are guaranteed under the Amazon.fr A-to-z Guarantee...

Payment Details:

Amazon requires the payment for this transaction to be done through Bank Transfer.

You must make the payment via Bank Transfer directly to your seller.
Here is the payment info's:

... The Engraving Gallery

PL02109025900000000129733484

WBKPPLPP

WBK Bank

ul. Rynek 9/11, 50-950,Poland...

To confirm your transfer to Amazon, send us the scanned paper from the Bank: Confirm Payment

• The Amazon protection programs offer a set of services that build protection into every step of the item buying process. Some of the elements are automatically included when you buy an item covered by the program element (not all elements are available for all products) while some of the elements are available for a small fee. 
• The funds will not be released under any circumstances! We will keep the payment until you send us your confirmation that you are satisfied to keep the item. As soon as we receive your confirmation we will transfer the funds to the Seller. Until then the Seller won't be able to access the money you sent and in any case you decide not to continue with the deal you will receive a full refund.

• Note: Amazon.fr is fully responsible for the money once they will be transferred and take the responsibility to refund the full amount if there will be any problems during the deal.

Thanks again for shopping with us.

We hope to see you again soon.

Can you spot the typos?  I thought you could.  Amazon holds funds in escrow and direct transfers between buyer and seller are strongly discouraged.  I hereby declare this a phishing expedition!  This thru Amazon no less.

Postscript - this morning I received the following message.

Hi again,
I was informed by Amazon that they send you all the payment and delivery informations. Search your inbox carefully and also check your bulk/spam/junk folder because it might have arrived there.
Please let me know asap.

Thank you!

Nothing in my spam nor in my inbox?  Color me shocked.  The bastards.

Upon closer inspection, there is a website that is hosted in Germany called media.364.  While the prices look incredible, at least one person has been taken for a ride by those folks.  Here's what I found about them. When I asked them what was going on, I was told

If you really want to buy please acces our website : www.media364.com

Again, you can spot the typos.  No, I really do not want to buy from them.  Would you?

Loosely related things ~ the Death of Photography as we knew it

These must be the End Times of photography.  How else can one explain what's going on these days?

Hasselblad used to make world class 2 1/4inch square format film cameras.  They were good enough that NASA contracted the company to make 70mm film-backed cameras that went to the moon as part of the American Space program (the Apollo missions).

To celebrate their heritage Hasselblad recently introduced a camera call the "Lunar."  The sad thing is the model name is for photographic purposes utterly meaningless.  It can't go into outer space and is nothing more than a very very expensive warm-over of Sony's old model NEX7.

What a joke!

Leica, like Hasselblad, used to make world class cameras.  Leica's image shape was the classic 35mm.  In fact, the company "invented" the 35mm format.  Today's 36mm x 24mm "full frame" sensors are the direct legacy of Leica's early creations.

So it's with more than a little interest that Leica recently announced their latest product offerings.  It's called the M-P "Correspondent."   It's claim to fame?  It comes brand new pre-brassed.  That's right.  You get a brand new camera and lens that have been made to look like they've lived 30 hard years in a press-pool working photographer's kit.

According to my calendar, it is not yet April 1st.  No fool'n!  What a joke!

My wife and I recently visited the Magnum Photo exhibition at the Hotel de Ville.  The show was devoted to images made of Paris from Magnum's inception through to the present.

Indeed many of the photographs from the late-1940's up through the 1960's had been made using Hasselblad and Leica camera systems.  The black and white photos are properly and fabulously printed.  The show was very well curated and shared enough information that a visitor could easily follow the evolution of photography in this city.

I was struck by something.  By the 1970's color prints revealed that a massive upheaval in imaging had taken place.  To explain the shift I need to go back and talk a little about the impact of photography on painting.

For hundreds of years painters depicted reality.  They recorded how people looked and scenes of historical importance.  When photography advanced to the point images could accurately record people's likenesses and capture time slices of significant events painters had to find something else to depict.

It's no coincidence that the "impressionists" advanced painting into the door-steps of the abstract.  Subsequent artists took painting further and further into abstraction to the point most casual observers need an explanation of what they are looking at to understand a work.

In the 1970's television had taken it's place in many first world living rooms.  Just as photography had done to painting in the late 1800's, the impact of television was to push photography into abstraction.

The Magnum show filled the years from the 1970's to the present with images of broad colors, simple large shapes, and into the realm of abstract ideas and concepts.  Without an explanation of what I was looking at, I had no idea what the photographer was attempting to say or share.

This begs the question of what is the present purpose of photography?  From what I can tell, photography has moved from accurately recording to sharing experiences and self-portraits (selfies).

Can the displacement of photography help explain the many forums populated with camera equipment junkies who, rather than attempt to make a fine image, spend their spare hours arguing over which piece of gear is better than another?  Is it, then, any wonder that Hasselblad and Leica, the old vanguards of tradition photography, struggle to remain tools of valid creative expression? 

Loosely related things...

Late last year I had six photoshoots with models lined up and, or so I thought, ready to go.  On the day of the shoots four models backed out an hour or two before we were to work together.  These events sent me into something of a tail-spin and I started to revisit the topic of why I do what I do.

While living in the states I enjoyed working with models.  It felt very much like we were working together.  The people I worked with had "as much skin in the game" as I did.  Now that my wife and I live in Europe I've come to see that things are not the same here.

As I try to find a way out of the tail-spin that I find myself in I've come across a few things that help me understand what is taking place around me.

• Each day 1.8 BILLION images a day are uploaded and shared across the internet
• Each month Instagram (an image sharing app) has over 300 MILLION active users
• "Selfies" (the taking and sharing of photos of ones self) has become so popular that camera manufacturers offer products tailored to the "need"
• Sports Illustrated, a somewhat famous magazine published in the USA, recently laid-off all of it's remaining photographers
• Photographs from the 1800's sometimes exhibit incredible image qualities 

I feel that "photography" is dead.  It is dead in the sense we knew it as recently as just a few years ago. The death of "photography" seems to be related to what an images purpose is and how they are consumed.  I use the word consumed deliberately.  I would rather use the word appreciated, but can't bring myself to do that.

Who is going to make the great images that people used to enjoy looking at in Sports Illustrated?  Who is so talented in their image making that they can replace professional artists with decades of experience under their belt?

It seems to me that photography has moved from recording time to sharing experiences.  Where is the of-the-age defining Hindenberg on fire image from the Fukushima disaster?  Where is the iconic photo that helps us understand what happened in that disaster?  There isn't one.  It was all "live feeds" of images and videos that shared the experience of the place.  That's how much things have changed.

I despair the lack of appreciation for how lighting can be used to define, describe, and illustrate a scene.  Amongst photographers certain people are, yes, still appreciated.  I'm thinking of Bill Gekas as I write this. Certainly there remains a (shrinking?) place for workers who know how to gather people together and pose them for weddings. Beyond this what "need" is there for someone to record an event or to make a lasting picture of someone?

This sea of images to consider and review is so vast that finding works which contain the qualities I have come to appreciate is very difficult.  Hashtags and sorting engines bring torrents of mediocre work which have little or no value (to me).  Flickr's "Explore" engine shares hundreds of photos and I'm many times left wondering what the hell is this?  The human curated sites like 500px.com and 1x.com seem to share the same collection of images day in and day out.

The sharing of talents between photographer/model/stylist/couture is no longer "needed" as anyone with an image maker or cell-phone can perform the tasks required to get a picture out of a box and onto a website or into print.  It takes no technical knowledge nor talent to make a wonderful image.  Imaging systems have, by and large, sorted all that out for the button pusher.  Anyone can "look good" as an "artist."

Now more than ever before I need to find, to fully appreciate. and to completely embrace the reasons I make images.  My work will likely be from this day forward for my own and only my own pleasure, contentment, and intellectual-emotional pursuits.

I cannot expect to work as I used to.  Things have dramatically changed.  Perhaps this is an opportunity for me to change as well.  The question is which path, if any, may I best forge?

Sony A6000 - a seven lens comparison

It seems that I'm still on a roll.

Since I already had the test setup in place, why not compare some more of my manual focus lenses against the modern Sigma EX DN E autofocus using the Sony A6000?  Why not look at the center of the scene as well as an extreme edge?  I'm retired and have nothing better to do, right?


The comparison setup didn't change.

• Sony A6000 camera, ISO100, "A" mode, "standard" image style settings, shot in RAW format
• Big sturdy Manfrotto tripod
• RAW images converted to jpg at 100percent quality using Sony's software - no image adjustments were made at the time of conversion
• 600x600pixel segments were taken out of each file - no adjustments to the image were made during the cut/paste process

The following two comparison files are quite large.  So click on them and they'll take you to Flickr where you can download and view the full-rez images.






My comments on these comparisons should be obvious.  The new Sigma 19mm, 30mm, and 60mm (not shown here) f/2.8 EX DN E/Art lenses are incredible from wide open all the way across the field to the very edges of the frame.  These are "keepers".

I think I can see where the old Nikkors have a few challenges, even on the smaller than full frame APS-C sized sensors.  I'm not sure why the edges fall off as badly as they do when the lenses are shot wide open, but they're pretty obviously bad.  My conjecture is that either the lenses were designed for speed and resolution at the center (which is common for designs of that period), and/or there is a fair amount of field curvature that is throwing the edges of the frame out of focus in these 2D scene comparisons.

Sony A6000 - Sony 16mm f/2.8 E, Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN E comparison

I'm on a roll.

Since I had a comparison setup in place, I thought I'd take a look at the recently acquried Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN E and see how it compared against a Sony 16mm f/2.8 E-mount lens.  The two lenses share a somewhat fast aperture, are nearly the same focal length, and sell for similar prices.  Could the performance be similar too?


The comparison setup didn't change.

• Sony A6000 camera, ISO100, "A" mode, "standard" image style settings, shot in RAW format
• Big sturdy Manfrotto tripod
• Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN E shot at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8
• Sony 16mm f/2.8 E-mount shot at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8
• RAW images converted to jpg at 100percent quality using Sony's software - no image adjustments were made at the time of conversion
• 600x600pixel segments were taken out of each file - no adjustments to the image were made during the cut/paste process 

The image is linked to my Flickr page.  View the image a full resolution to more clearly see the differences between the two lenses.


My observations include the obvious.  Either the 16mm Sony  is really awful or the Sigma 19mm is absolutely brilliant.  Differences between the two lenses should be clear.  To me, the Sigma is the superior optic from wide open and across the entire field.

Sony A6000/Nikon 300mm f/4.5 H pre-Ai to Canon 100-400mm L f/4.5-5.6 comparison ~ le deuxieme part

When I took a look at the Sony A6000 - Nikon 300mm f/4.5 H pre-Ai and tried to compare it against the Canon 7D - 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L combination, I relied on the Canon's contrast detect AF system.  I also relied on the 7D's smaller sensor and stronger anti-aliasing filter.

I realized later that the comparison likely proved nothing.  If I was interested in seeing how the ancient (c.1972-ish) Nikkor really compared against the much more modern-flourite-element Canon100-400L, then I'd have to normalize my comparison conditions.  For this, I would use the Sony A6000 and the appropriate lens adapters.  I would also need to carefully manually focus both lenses, which would be my only option on the A6000 for the adapters and lenses I have.


With these things in mind, here is another look at the Nikon 300mm f/4.5 H pre-Ai and the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L.

• Sony A6000 camera, ISO100, "A" mode, "standard" image style settings, shot in RAW format
• Big sturdy Manfrotto tripod
• Nikon 300mm f/4.5 H shot at f/4.5, f/5.6, and f/8
• Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L shot at f/5.6 and 400mm (to match the scene dimensions of the Nikkor)
• RAW images converted to jpg at 100percent quality using Sony's software - no image adjustments were made at the time of conversion
• 600x600pixel segments were taken out of each file - no adjustments to the image were made during the cut/paste process

This image will take you to the Flickr host site.  Look at "All Sizes" and select the largest file size to view at 100 percent.


My observations remain similar to the ones I made in the previous post.

One thing that I've noticed about internal focusing lenses is that the image magnification is much less than the old rack-focus optics.  In this comparison the Canon needed to be set to 400mm to match the scene size of the Nikon 300mm focused to around 14feet.  I encountered a similar situation when I using a Canon 24-105L and Nikon 85mm on a near-distance subject.

The Nikon 300mm delivers a little less contrast to the sensor than the Canon 100-400L.  This can be easily accounted for during image processing.  As for resolution, it's very difficult for me to find any meaningful difference between the two lenses.  The Nikon might be slightly softer in the corners at f/4.5 (because of spherical aberrations?) than the Canon at f/5.6.  A light smart sharpening would bring the Nikkor image resolution right in line with the Canon's.

I find this interesting in light of the fact the Nikkor is 4 decades old and more than 1500USD cheaper than the Canon.

Sony A6000/Nikon 300mm f/4.5 H pre-Ai to Canon 7D/100-400mm L f/4.5-5.6 comparison

The Madness has set firmly on the brain as the Camera Flu continues un-abated.

I was curious how a Nikon Nikkor 300mm f/4.5 H might compare against the much more recent and optically sophisticated Canon 100-400mm L f/4.5-5.6 super zoom.

 Comparison scene setup

[shot with Sony NEX5, Nikon 50mm f/1.4, Lens Turbo II]

Why the curiosity?  Well, because, on a whim I picked up one of the aforementioned Nikon 300mm non-ED lenses for 100Euro.  It's in tres bon etat and came with the proper caps for both ends and the original carrying case.  I'm a sucker and an easy mark for old manual focus lenses in excellent condition.

Checking the serial number of the lens I see that I was made during the early 1970's.  The H model optic preceded Nikon's introduction of their extra low dispersion glass example by at least 3 years.  Commenters across the 'net seem to rave about the 300mm ED, but not much enthusiasm is expended over the H.  Well, as I said, I'm a sucker for a good looking lens.

The old Nikkor is nearly as heavy as the Canon L, though this is nicely offset by the smaller diameter lens barrels.  I've found that a smaller lens size makes a lens easier for me to work with, even if the weight is similar to something with a large diameter barrel.

Being a fixed focal length lens, the Nikon is of course not as flexible the Canon zoom.   But, since the Sony A6000 is APS-C and since I have a Lens Turbo II focal length reducer and a standard straight-thru Nikon to E-mount adapter I have two focal lengths to choose from when using the Nikkor - 300mm f/4 and 216mm f/3.2.

Size comparison

The Nikkor lens was set to it's closest focus point,

making the lens barrels extend to it's longest.

 [shot with Sony NEX5, Sigma 30mm EX DN E]

Assuming for a moment that Sony introduces an in-body IS APS-C camera that solves the no-IS problem in using old lenses, the biggest thing I in the Sony/Nikkor kit give up is AF.  I've come to love AF as it's most of the time more accurate than I am.  The question is how accurate can I be at focusing the Nikkor?  Would I be happy with the results?

The comparison setup was as follows -

• A very stout tripod (a Manfrotto somethingorother)
• Sony A6000 at 100ISO in "A" mode (aperture preferred)
• Nikon Nikkor 300mm f/4.5 H c.1972-ish
• Lens manually focused at 14x
• Nikon shot in two ways - with a straight-thru adapter and with a Lens Turbo II focal length reducer
• Canon 7D 18mpixel camera at 100ISO in "A" mode (aperture preferred)
• Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L super zoom set to a field of view that nearly matched those of the Nikkor/Sony setup
• Canon contrast AF focusing in Live View
• Both lenses shot wide open and at f/8 (to see if the IQ improved by stopping down)
• 600x600pixel 100percent resolution image sections taken from the original scene (though I did not account for the file resolution differences between the 7D and A6000).

As we will see, Canon's AF wasn't as accurate as manual focusing at a high magnification.

The results are...

[The following image links to my Flickr page.  Look at this a full resolution to properly compare the various image sections.]


My observations include -

Nikon single-coated lens images are slightly lower contrast than the Canon zoom.  However, it was very easy to match the contrast of the Canon lens in processing.

Canon's Live View AF system was a rather hit-or-miss affair.  This is easily seen in the image comparisons.  To think I've trusted the Canon AF system in the over 5 years I've owned the 7D. Having said that, using a (mostly) accurate very high speed AF system tied to image stabilization and focal-length flexibility makes for a very powerful kit. 

If I can accurately focus my manual focus lenses the Sony A6000 offers 11fps burst rate whereas the 7D waltzes along at 8fps.  Am I good enough to track and accurately focus moving targets?  Time will tell.

The higher resolution Sony sensor (24mpixel vs Canon's 18mpixel) gives me a to be expected increase in the amount of information that can be used in the image file.  The Sony file details are gorgeous and easy to work with.  The sensor is the resolution limiting fact.  Lenses typically out-resolve a sensor from wide open down through f/11.

From wide open, the Nikon 300mm f/4.5 H pre-Ai single-coated ancient as the hills ray-trace designed and mathematically calculated by hand lens is every bit the resolution match of the computer designed fluorite element Canon super-zoom. 

Size comparison

The Nikkor lens was set to it's closest focus point,

making the lens barrels extend to it's longest.

 [shot with Sony NEX5, Sigma 30mm EX DN E]

Helios 44M-4 and Zhongyi Lens Turbo II comparisons

I recently caught a Camera Flu and acquired a couple new pieces of equipment.  To justify the acquisitions (guilty as charged) I wanted to see how things looked.

The first new piece of gear is a Helios 44M-4 that I traded a Takumar 50mm macro for.  I'd read where someone thought that altering the space between the first element and second lens group in a Gauss design lens could lead to more pronounced Petzval portrait lens-like effects.
[Read Jim Galli's comment here.]

The second new piece of gear is a new Zhongyi Lens Turbo II.  This takes full frame SLR lenses and acts as a reverse tele-converter.  It takes a full 35mm frame field and resizes it to fit APS-C or micro 4/3rd's, depending on the adapter.  Mine takes Nikon F-mount lenses and adapts them to the APS-C sensor'd Sony mirrorless series cameras.

This isn't really a test.  Nothing is being measured and any results are purely subjective.

Here is the image comparison setup.  It was made using a Sony A6000, Zhongyi Lens Turbo II, and a Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 pre-Ai shot wide open.


The first image comparison is of the Helios 58mm f/2 in various stages of lens element positions.  Starting with the lens properly and fully assembled, I then moved the entire front element group forward by unscrewing the group to the extent of the thread range (without the group falling out of the barrel body).  Next I moved the front element forward in the front group with the forward cell mount fully seated.  Finally, I tried moving both the front and rear elements in the front lens group apart and moved the cell mount to the front of the threaded range.

If you click on the image, it'll take you to my Flickr hosted image.  From there select full image size to look at this at 100% resolution.  Any differences between the various segments can be easily reviewed.

All comparison images were made with the Helios shot wide open at f/2. 



My subjective observations are that there are indeed differences in how the image is rendered as the various elements are moved.  Interestingly, the out of focus rendition becomes smoother as the front element groups are separated and the front group mount is moved forward in their threads.  But, and this is to be expected, resolution suffers to varying degrees.

It appears a "dreamy" 1800's portrait lens effect is possible, though I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

Which led me to a second set of image comparisons.  I'd read that the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II full frame to APS-C field reducer rendered the out of focus regions more softly than the native lens used with a straight-thru adapter.  Here's my look at the question.

If you click on the image, it'll take you to my Flickr hosted image.  From there select full image size to look at this at 100% resolution.  Any differences between the various segments can be easily reviewed.

All comparison lenses were shot wide open.  


I did my best to keep the primary scene composition similar between the various lenses and focal lengths.  The Lens Turbo II knocks 0.72x off the focal length and increases the aperture by the same amount.  More on this in a moment.

Considering resolution it appears the Lens Turbo adapter does not degrade image quality in the in focus areas for the lenses I used.  I once again see how difficult it is to get something in focus with wide aperture lenses.  This is partly due to the amount of spherical aberration I see in many old 35mm film-era lenses.  I'm not always certain where the best focus is.

The Sigma 60mm DN Art f/2.8 is obviously sharp.  It's a modern design.  Manually locating the focus point was easy and simple.  But it's maximum aperture is a stop or two under most of the lenses I tried.  How the old Nikkors would perform at f/2.8 against the Sigma has been left to a future comparison.

Looking at the out of focus regions I have to agree with whomever noted the smoother image areas when using the Lens Turbo II focal length reducer.  In every case I feel the out of focus rendition is "creamier" and "smoother" when compared with a native lens used without an adapter.  I rather like what it does to the 50mm and 85mm lenses.

So how does the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II work?  It's pretty simple, actually.  It optically reduces the image size from full frame 35mm to APS-C or micro 4/3rd's dimension.  Interestingly it seems to do this at no cost to resolution.

The Lens Turbo also _increases_ the effective aperture by approximately one stop.  In the case of the Nikon 50mm f/1.4, when used with the adapter it becomes a 35mm f/1.0 lens.

How is this possible?  Remembering optical physics, a lens' focal length divided by the front element diameter will give you the aperture.  When you take a 50mm lens and reduce it's field of view to, say, 35mm _without_ changing the front element diameter, you effectively increase the aperture.  In the case of the Lens Turbo II the aperture is increased by 0.72.

If you don't follow me, tell me and I'll have another "go" at explaining what's going on here.

What's important to note is that a 50mm f/1.4 lens on a full frame 35mm system as a 35mm f/1.0 does on APS-C and there is no change in the effective depth of field.

Again, if you don't follow me on this, let me know and I'll try to explain things a little better.

So... where does this leave me?

I see it's possible to carry a two lens, two adapter kit and cover four focal lengths.  For instance, I could carry a 24mm f/2 and a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor.  Used on the APS-C Sony A6000 I would have the effective full frame focal lengths of 24mm f/1.4 (focal length reduced 24mm f/2), 35mm f/2 (effective focal length of a 24mm lens on APS-C), 50mm f/1.0 (focal length reduced 50mm f/1.4), and 85mm f/1.4 (effective focal length of a 50mm lens on APS-C) at my disposal.

The combinations and capabilities are now seemingly endless.

Photo-Opportunities ~ early 2015

If you're in or around Paris in early 2015 and are looking for things to photograph, here's a rather short list of potentially fun things to do.

4-8 February ~ Retromobile where old cars, parts, manuals can be found and that fabulous Baillon Garage Find will go up for auction
15 February ~ 18ème cortège du Carnaval de Paris de la place Gambetta à la place de la République en passant par l'avenue Gambetta, les boulevards de Ménilmontant et Belleville et la rue du Faubourg-du-Temple (text borrowed from Basil's email)

15 March ~  7ème cortège du Carnaval des Femmes, Fête des Reines des Blanchisseuses de la Mi-Carême - les femmes sont invitées à se costumer en Reines et les hommes en femmes, s'ils osent! (text borrowed from Basil's email)

23-24 May ~ Geekopolis at la Porte de Versailles

~ Completed ~ 

Charlie Hebdo murders ~ my images from the memorials can be found here -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/christophersoddsandsods/sets/72157650193734352/

11 January ~ La Traversee de Paris with 600+ ancient vehicles storming the streets - my images can be found here -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/christophersoddsandsods/sets/72157649823674257/

Spanning Iron Spaces ~ Image Portfolio ~ Electronic Distribution

This is to announce that I am releasing Spanning Iron Spaces.

The city my wife and I live in is filled with wonderful old iron structures.  I wanted to celebrate a very simple means of support found around the city.  I use the word support in both it's literal and figurative sense.  I wanted to look at how man has artistically used the base metal.  I wanted to create a series of images of iron, rivets, and the space around them.  I wanted to capture what some might see as the ordinary and reveal it's underlying beauty.

Spanning Iron Spaces, as with the previously released Hauntings of Gothic Ghosts, is offered in short form for free.  The full electronic PDF distribution is offered at 10USD.

Note: The difference in price between this release and the earlier portfolio reflects the fact the new work is yet to be published.  Should a publisher share portions of this work in a journal or book I will adjust the price upward to 25USD.

Re-learning old tricks...

Since moving to digital for all my serious work I've shot with heavy DSLRs and big zoom lenses.

This has recently changed.  Completely.


A Sony A6000 has climbed into my camera bag.  It's taken it's place alongside three Sigma fixed focal length DN lenses.  Everyone looks to be here for a long stay.

Many years ago I used a Leica and three lenses.  This was back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and my cameras were loaded with Kodak Tri-X or Ilford FP4 or Ilford HP5 and fixed focal length optics were the only reliably sharp option.  Hollywood was where I lived at the time and New Wave and Punk were the music styles in vogue around the LA basin.  My Fiat 124 Sport Coupe was a blast to drive Hwy 1 and 101.


My three lens photography kit consisted of a 35mm, 50mm, and 85 or 90mm lens.  The Leica wasn't the only kit I built like that.  I also owned Canon F1(original) and Nikon FM systems.  Each built on the basic three lens kit.  With the SLRs I added a 200mm or 300mm lens for wildlife and motorsports work.  This was the way I learned to "see".

When I moved into large and very large format film I built the kits, once again, on the three lens step of equivalent focal lengths to my old 35mm gear.  90/150/210mm in 4x5inch and 210/300/450mm in 8x10inch film.  Continuing to work this way was an extension of how I had learned to "see."

With the move to digital I learned to love the "flexibility" of high quality zoom lenses.  My kit contained zooms from ultra-wide all the way up to ultra-long.  The lenses that got the most use were the 24-105mm and 100-400mm.  The ultra-wide and medium-long zooms sat largely unused.


What I noticed is that my "seeing" became, for the lack of a better word, "lazy."  All I had to do was twist the zoom ring and re-frame the scene.  It was all very simple.  Though now that I look at things it seems like a lot of my work had taken on a "bland" appearance.  Not only had my "seeing" become "lazy", the "look" of my images were bordering on looking "lazy" too.

Moving into mirrorless for all my serious work has been like "backing the horse into the barn."  I've taken small steps.  Four years ago I bought two mirrorless cameras that I used for around-town and travel photography.  A month ago I bought a couple Sigma DN Art lenses and tried them out on my aging around-town/travel NEX5.  I liked how crisp and clear the images were on the small sensor.  A week later I bought a camera with more pixels than the Old Beast.

Wandering around the city and working in the studio has shown me what is possible.  Image quality is very important to me.  I did not want to take a step down in quality by moving to a smaller system.  As a measure of how happy I am with the results I now have all three Sigma DN Art lenses.


Which leaves me to wonder about the need for a high quality zoom.  The mirrorless kit lens is OK on smaller sensor cameras, but has obvious short-comings when mounted on the big-mpixel camera.  Zeiss offers a nice zoom, but would I use it?

A recent visit to Passy leaves me wondering if I really _need_ to spend Zeiss kinds of $$$'s.  I'm amazed at how quickly I've slipped back into the three lens kit way of "seeing."  In fact, I remember how to frame an image and select the correct focal length lens without thinking about things.  It's a natural movement.  Just like when I lived and photographed around Southern California.

Can Old Dawgs really ever _un-learn_ Old Tricks?  In my case it seems not.
 

Working with creative people...

My wife and I have worked with many people over the years.  She assists during a shoot and helps catch things I don't see.

One of the things she's noticed is how tired I am after three hours of shooting.  My arms, neck, back, and legs would ache for a couple days afterward.  It's been this way ever since we moved to France.  I've felt the big Old Beast (Canon 5D MkII/24-105L kit) weight was the source of my recent challenges.

I was interested to see if I could downsize my kit while improving the image quality at the same time.

Enter the new Sony A6000



Last weekend Judith and I were visited by l'equipe de French Steampunk. Anne Delauney-Ladevèze, Alexandre Ls, Matthieu Van Weise came to our atelier to spend two and a half hours in front of the camera.  I love working with creative people like this.  Time flies and magic happens.  This is what I came to Paris to do.  Well, this and enjoy retirement, right?  :-)

Considering the camera-work, I've used the Canon zoom so much that I wasn't sure I could go back to a fixed focal length objective as my prime studio lens.  Would I miss the "flexibility" of the zoom?  Would I feel hindered by a fixed focal length?

I should've known and quickly realized that the A6000 Sony mated with a Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX DN E is all this person really needs in the studio.  "Sneaker Zoom" (ie: physically moving to/away from the subject) is not nearly as bad as I feared.  I actually like it.  The zoom on the Old Beast gave my prior images an inconsistent "look".  The effect is very subtle, but I can begin to see this as I work with the new setup.

In the darkened room the AF would "hunt" a little.  But, and this is the important part to me, it hunted no more than my Old Beast did under similar conditions.  In fact, there were many times when the Old Beast would completely fail to lock AF.  With the Sony/Sigma kit it's only a short matter of time before the AF settles.


 It's in fact better than this.  With the Sony's "face detect" capabilities I'm able to let the camera do what it was designed to do and come away with razor sharp eye-lashes 99 percent of the time.Selecting a focus point near the region where I wanted it to be seemed to enhance "face detects" ability to lock AF.  This is a Good Very Thing(tm). 

My last concern was with the electronic view finder (EVF).  On a Fuji I tried, when I panned the EVF had trouble keeping up with the motion and it scrambled my brain.  But... with the Sony I find lag time to not be a problem and my mind remained un-scrambled for the duration of the shoot.

I've already noted that at the pixel-peeping level that the Sony A6000 24mpixel APS-C sensor out-performs the six year old full-frame sensor in the Old Beast. What I haven't mentioned is that the A6000's increased dynamic range gives cleaner, less noisy shadow rendition than the Old Beast's output.  The increased dynamic range of the APS-C sized sensor gives me more information to work with (very slight, but noticable) and, therefore, more flexibility in image processing.  I know.  This is all counter-intuitive.  Can the APS-C really out-perform a Full Frame sensor?  In this case the answer is yes.


 To sum up my experience with the new camera kit I find I LOVE the light weight and wonderfully small size.  The new setup fits my hands nicely.  And... I actually don't mind the EVF.  It's actually quite nice.  Further, the image quality is better than my old kit (see prior posts).  As a bonus, my arms and back don't ache the next day.  Life is good.

Using a fixed focal length lens has become my new approach.  I like it for it's simplicity and "direct-ness."  It feels like the Old Days when I wandered Los Angeles with a Leica M3 and (what I wished I still owned) a Summarit 50mm f/1.5.  I "see" differently and feel more engaged.

To sum up my experience with creative people here in France, I have to say that I spoke far too soon about Paris being conservative.  No, Paris is not as conservative as I first thought.  I just didn't know where to look.  I'm in Seventh Heaven, now that I'm discovering talented creative types who are willing to work with me through the kind help of a few good friends.

Merci, France.  Je vous aime beaucoup.  Let the creativity flow!

Tools of the Trade ~ Print Sizes ~ le deuxieme part

Someone asked how it was possible that I could make a 14.2mpixel Sony NEX5 image look as good as something coming from a Canon 5D MkII or MkIII.

Earlier I wrote about a way of making large prints from small-ish files, but I didn't really give a clear calculation for various sensor sizes and how file dimensions relate to maximum resolution maximum print size. I think it's time to further consider the question.

Here's the basic formula -

[print size in the long dimension] = [file size ~ choose the long dimension for consistency] / [print dpi you feel you can tolerate]

Using a Sony NEX5 14.2 megapixel as an example, here's how this works in the real world -


15 inches = 4592 image nodes in the long dimension / 300 dpi

If you head over the DPReview, they give the file dimensions of various cameras reviewed.  That's where the 4592 image nodes information comes from (or you can simply read the file dimensions if you already have the camera).

300 dpi comes from current common print practices.  Most labs and publications I've dealt with all specify 300 dpi.  This makes sense as young human eyes can resolve 5 line pair per mm.  So 300 dpi gives a printed image more resolution than most of us can with the naked eye.  This is imporant in my discussion here, and I will revisit this number shortly.

Using this approach let's look at several different cameras with a number of different sensor and file sizes to see how big a print we can make while giving more resolution than the naked human eye can see -

• 15 inches = [4592 image nodes in the long dimension / 300 dpi] - Sony NEX5 14.2mpixel
• 18 inches = [5616image nodes / 300dpi] - Canon 5D MkII 21 megapixel
  
• 24 inches = [7360image nodes / 300dpi] - Nikon D800 36 megapixel
• 34 inches =  [10380image nodes /300 dpi] - Phase One IQ180 80 megapixel medium format sensor 

If we consider 254 dpi as giving us EXACTLY the maximum resolution that the naked eye can perceive, then the formula tells us we can make an even larger print from a native file.  Here is what we can achieve -

• 18 inches = [4592 image nodes in the long dimension / 254 dpi] - Sony NEX5 14.2mpixel
• 22 inches = [5616image nodes / 254 dpi] - Canon 5D MkII 21 megapixel
  
• 29 inches = [7360image nodes / 254 dpi] - Nikon D800 36 megapixel
• 41 inches =  [10380image nodes / 254 dpi] - Phase One IQ180 80 megapixel medium format sensor

Very quickly one can see where a 14.2mpixel file printed at 254dpi can have the same print size at full human resolution as a Canon 5D MkII printed at 300dpi.

There's more to it than just this that I find rather interesting.  It's something I should've thought about more closely.

To double native image dimensions requires a four fold increase in sensor size.

We realize that to double the native print size at full naked human eye resolution can be costly.  To go from 15inches to 30inches would require going from a 14.2 megapixel Sony NEX5 file to printing an 80 megapixel Mamiya Phase One IQ180 file.  It requires going from a $500 camera to a $50,000 camera to double native file maximum print size.  So, if cost is an issue, couldn't you just stitch four images from the little $500 camera and "call it done?"

Looking at this from still yet another perspective, we can take the little 14.2 megapixel file, uprez it using a smart sharpening technique to Canon 5D MkII file dimensions, and print the little camera's image at 300dpi.  Taking this approach is not a stretch for the software technologies involved.  The up-rez step is not that large at all.

That is exactly why it's so easy to get 5D MkII print quality out of a small file, as you can see in the attached image.



Much of this up-rez technology is already built into software like the Gimp, Photoshop, and Lightroom.  Adobe goes as far as to say they've carefully chosen the algorithms they use so as to keep as much resolution as possible on the up-rez.

Why, then, would I go to all this trouble to explore a topic that's already handled by some software?  Curiosity.  I like to understand what's going on.  It's takes the magic and wishful thinking out of my processes and brings me to a place where I might be able to carefully tune my output to get the last ounce of information possible from a file.

le Salon de la Photo ~ Paris ~ 2014

There are no doubt numerous "show reports" floating around out there regarding this year's Salon de la Photo.  What could I possible add?  Perhaps not much, but here it goes in any event.



Arriving at opening time is a prime recipe for getting squashed in a righteous French-style queue.  You see, it's Madness and Bedlam as people wade or crowd-surf their way to one or two Gate Keepers.  The Gate Keepers are the ones with the scanners.

Ah... I see I need to explain something, so let me back up a bit.

Last year someone laughed at me when I asked where one buys a ticket to le Salon.  The way the game is played here is that you get an "invitation" to the event.  Unlike fashion runway shows, receiving an "invitation" is as easy as reading Paris Match.


There's a "code" that specifies who's doing the "inviting".  These "codes" are widely available and it seems like any and all dogs, cats, critters, and companies issue them.  Chose a "code", any "code".  They're free.  As in No Charge.  Gratuit.  Zip.  Zero.

Enter a "code" into the Salon website in the right place and what you get is a PDF you can print.  The PDF has, among other things, a bar-code and this is your ticket into the show.

Easy.  Right?  When it comes to free, you don't know the lengths Parisians will go to make sure there is Egalitie, Libertie, and, well, forget the Fraternitie, OK?  You realize the pecking order of what's important once you're queued.  Any Fraternity comes from how closely packed you are, not from the level of conviviality you might imagine the word should have meant.

Close your eyes and try to envision hundreds of Old Farts of all sizes, shapes, and heights doing their level best to elbow their way to the front of the queue where two and only two men with bar-code scanners await to grant you entry.  Or not.

We'd chosen the wrong side of the scrum.  I mean, queue.  No.  I think scrum adequately describes the experience.  Two elderly gents had reached the front of the scrum and... their bar-codes were not scanning properly... they were arguing with the Bar Code Handlers... and the scrum was becoming as anxious as a herd of Zebras who smelled Lions in the brush...


Our neighbor, Jude, and I skirted the scrum to the other side... et... voila!  After a 25minute surge forward we were having our "invitations" scanned and, as it was a tight squeeze past the Old Geezers Who Must Argue with a Bar Code Handler, it felt like we might be Watermelon seeds being squirted out into the rusting dented parts missing automobile strewn yard while... um... nevermind that.  It was a funny feeling to go from the scrum into the peaceful, calm area inside the barrier to the show floor.

Collecting ourselves (mentally) we found our directions and headed off to see a few nice photographs.  The camera gear portion of le Salon could wait until my wife and neighbor left the show 45 minutes later.

I find it fascinating that HUGE scrums of Fraternitie Loving French People are seen huddled around the camera equipment displays, fondling the latest, greatest, sometimes hugely expensive tools of image making... and you can almost hear the crickets chirping in the areas where the results of putting Image Making Tools to use are displayed.

Why is it that so many people love the tools and so few try to appreciate the art?


Considering the art, one thing that impressed me and at the same time confirmed what I'd proven thru testing was a display of 20x30inch(approx) images made using 16mpixel micro-4/3rd's Image Making Tools.  They were lovely to look at.  They were well composed, well exposed, well printed, and looked every bit as good as photographs printed to the same size taken using 50mpixel medium format sensors.  Yes.  It might be difficult to believe.  To me the Truth was in the seeing.  I was blown away.  Which tool is less important than the results of your artistic process.

Kissing my lovely wife goodbye and telling her "I'll be home later" left me to my own (evil?) devices.  Ah, Libertie!

I wanted to experience the Egalitie of Sharp French Elbows by fondling a few Image Making Tools myself.  To get there I needed to Egalitie my Sharp American Elbows to a camera manufacturer's display of choice.  It had to begin with Sony.

Being on a Mission from the Muse of Photographic Arts meant I was looking to downsize my camera kit.  The older I get the bigger and heavier the Old Beast has become.  Unless it's gained weight eating all that light (which it hadn't) the issue rests with me.  I'm getting old.

I tried my version of Egalitie out on the poor French peoples, elbows and all, and found myself quickly at a Display Counter Filled with Dreams.

Your Humble Servant

on a Mission from the Muse of Photographic Arts 

After a short disappointing look at a Dream A7R (size and weight challenges for me) a strange and eerie light beckoned. It was like First Love.  Or Last Love at First Light.  Um, maybe it was First Love at First Sight.  Whatever.  I could tell there were important differences between what I was holding and what I was looking at.

On the other side of the Sony counter sat a pair of A6000 mirrorless APS-C sized sensor mini-wonders.  I had to try them out and Egalitie'd my way around the Display Counter Filled with Dreams.

Cutting to the Chase, I bought a boitier nu from a Paris local store shortly after realizing my dreams had come true.

If interested, you can read my prior post on testing an A6000 against the Old Beast.


The rest of the show was a haze of images, sounds, further Egalitie-Elbows and More Scrum.  Trade shows can be loud crazy affairs and the Salon to me borders on chaos.  If I hadn't been on a Mission from the Muse of Photographic Arts I'd like to think I would avoid the place.  But that's not true.

I find I love the Fraternitie scrum, Sharp French Elbow'd Egalitie, and trans-national-corporate-sponsored Libertie as only the French can deliver it.  Besides, le Salon is a free "code", a short walk, an elderly scrum, and a scanned bar-code away.

Pixel Peeping and the Real World... le quatrieme part

To recap:  What's a guy to do when faced with a 100Euro instant rebate from Sony and offered a 4 year guarantee for free by the camera shop?  Kick the Canon 5D MkII to the curb?  Maybe.

After bringing my new pride and joy home from le Salon de la Photo I ran a very very quick test to see how the Sony A6000 performed.  Compared with the Canon 5D MkII (henceforth known as The Old Beast) it looked like I could match the 6 year old camera's image performance... but... I wasn't entirely convinced.

I stayed up half the night thinking about this.  Was the AF as accurate as I thought?  Did I use the correct settings on both cameras to produce a valid result?  Did I make a mistake in buying the Sony?  Afterall, DPReview showed images from the A6000 that I thought were clearly superior to a 5D MkIII's output (a generation Canon newer than the one I owned).  I wanted to see the difference "clearly" demonstrated.

So... after defrosting the freezer and cleaning the kitchen floor this morning I hauled out a test setup to see if I could find a different answer to the one I'd worried over the night before.

The heavy tripod mounted, 2second trigger delay test setup -

• Canon 5D MkII/24-105L at ISO100, f/8, image style set to "Standard"
• Canon output converted from RAW at two settings:  1) Zero in Canon's DPP software sharpening.  2) DPP sharpening slider set to 3, with no other manipulations out of the camera.

• Sony A6000/Sigma 30mm, ISO100, f/5.6, image style set to "Standard"
• Using Sony's in-camera sharpening at four settings: sharpening set to Zero, One, Two, and Three and converted without further manipulation using Sony's Image Converter software.

Here's the answer -


Looking at this closely (ie: at 100%) you can see that Sony's "standard" image style default image sharpening set to Zero seems to match, if not slightly exceed, Canon's DPP processed image with sharpening set to 3.  Canon's 0 DPP sharpening is clearly softer than Sony's identical setting.

Further, Sony's in-camera image sharpening settings greater than 0 show increasingly "crisp", some might say "over sharpened" images up thru sharpening set to 3.

These findings are very important to me.  My default has been to use the 5D MkII "standard" image style with sharpening set to 3 and to use DPP to perform the conversion after initial processing.  I've used this approach for 6 years and love the large print resolution I've seen from The Old Beast.  I can enlarge images to 30x40inches and still see very pleasingly sharp images.  This was my baseline against which all other things were to be measured.

With the Sony A6000 it looks like I can use it's "standard" image style with image sharpening set to 0 and still easily exceed The Old Beast's resolution.  With a very light touch in Sony's Image Conversion software I can further enhance the appearance of sharpness/resolution without "over doing" the whole effect of resolution.

In short, I can clearly demonstrate that the Sony A6000 image quality exceeds The Old Beast's.

Onward to using the new, small, light tool for serious image creation.