In retrospect
Now that 2010 is here, I’ve been thinking back on 2009 and there have been quite a few things that have happened for me, which have opened my eyes:
Inverpolly
Workshop leaders learn something too
I always thought that being the leader of a photo workshop would mean that I would have to fill the role of the expert, but if anything, what I have learned is that workshops are a melting pot of ideas with people who see differently, work differently, and it’s not just the participants on the trips that learn something.
I learn a lot too: some of it is an improve awareness of my own thought processes when making my own images. This has had a massive impact on my images and I feel my own compositions are getting more and more simplified. I’m unsure if this is a good thing as I believe very much in going with your gut feeling, but on the other hand, I’m pleased to see my photography moving on a bit.
But on each trip I’ve been on, I always find something new to take away with me.
Digital technology is improving at a pace
It’s always hard to get a feel for how much things are changing and we always tend to rely on reviews of camera gea. One of the things I’ve found very interesting on the workshops is the access I get to new equipment and this year I have been stunned a few times by what is now capable with digital SLRs….
1. Dynamic Range is on the up. Yep, some of the cameras I’ve seen this year hardly need grad filters at times and I’ve had a few occasions where a scene I knew would not fit onto my trusty Velvia 50 film would more than easily be recorded on a digital camera without the need for grads. The Nikon D3 records 8.5 stops dynamic range while the new Leica M9 records around 10 stops I believe. The Phase One medium format digital backs are supposed to record somewhere around 13 stops of dynamic range.
2. Not all high end DSLR’s are created equal, and comparisons between different manufacturers at the same price point does not often mean you get the same level of quality.
3. I love the new Nikons. I never thought I would say this, but if I were to go back to Digital at the moment (financially not possible and more importantly from where I feel I want to go – digital is not an avenue I wish to pursue), then the D700 or the D3 would be the camera I’d choose. The D3x would be more of a contender because it has a mask for composing in 5×4 aspect ratio, which is one of the reasons why I went back to my Mamiya 7. I’m sure this will stir those that are ‘gear-heads’, but the way I see it, digital technology moves on at a pace, and sometimes one Camera manufacturer is ahead of the others. For a long while, it was Canon, but over the past few years the Nikon’s have really moved on. This of course, will change again. I have no time for the Canon vs Nikon debate. It’s just equipment.
Photography is many things to many people
Well, this is not a new observation for me, but even so, I’m still amazed at what I’ve seen some of my participants shoot, how they like to shoot and what they find aesthetically pleasing. All this is great…. Photography should be an inspiring, enjoyable process that takes you somewhere – to a new reality in your mind.
Hi Bruce,
one of the things I love about teaching is how much I learn from the students!
I think you’re wise to stay out of the pointlessness of the Nikon v. Canon debate, and I don’t want to go down the equally pointless film v. digital debate, but: I bought a D90 at the end of last year (the ones you mention are WAY out of my price league, but the D90 is the top ‘amateur’ one under the D700; by the way, the D3 has a 5×4 crop, I think, not just the D3x). The D90 is amazing – much better than I expected… not that I have that much to go on. But, but, but, my simple old F65 (or the really old FM2 with just a 50mm lens) still produces creamier blues on Velvia than the D90 manages…
Still, it is all about enjoying the creativity, and the machines are just that… machines to help us along, and your images and texts always help me to remember that! :)
Comment by michael — 27 January, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
Hi Bruce,
Interesting blog post. I have been thinking about the D700 on and off for quite a while now, and hearing things like this make me start thinking about it again. I usually sit on decisions to buy new gear for a while to see if I really have a reason to buy it.
The only problem I have with the D700 is that the lens options for the slightly-wide to slightly telephoto range are pretty slim. The 24-70 looks like a great lens but it’s as big as a whale and heavy as one too. Put it together with the camera and your wallet now has a really big hole in it.
I’m looking for a lens that doesn’t break the bank or the back, as a lot of my photography is done in on-the-move travel. Whereas there are a lot of choices for lens in the Nikon crop sensor range, the full frame sensor range is pretty lacking for the middle ground in the price/size/weight vs quality debate.
So I have just continued to sit and do nothing and keep using the camera I have. Which is fine, but I think it has an inch thick layer of dust on the sensor after Egypt & Jordan!
Comment by Niall Connaughton — 28 January, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
Hi Niall,
This all brings me to another point I’ve seen in the past year:
4. People turn up to workshops with ultra-wide angles. I can’t figure out why? The magazines must be pushing the ultra-wides like crazy, but the fact is, it takes a while for a beginner to get used to using a standard-wide-angle…. so adding in an ultra-wide just makes for more complicated matters.
Niall, a 24mm on full frame, is in my opinion, wide enough to be getting on with.
As for lens prices… you do get what you pay for. The 18-200 lens is terrible – barrel distortion (bending horizons), and If weight is a concern – why not consider reducing your kit down to a couple of prime lenses?
As you’ve probably heard me say – I don’t like Zooms. They make us lazy, and using prime lenses means we start to zoom with our feet, rather than staying routed to the same spot (and thus, same view point).
I’d be thinking about buying a 24 and 50 prime for that D700. But I’m sure the primes are pretty costly too.
In terms of lens quality : you do get what you pay for.
Does Nikon do an APS sensor camera with similar dynamic range to their D700? (I’m no Nikon expert and their product rage is very unfamiliar to me).
Comment by Bruce Percy — 28 January, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
Hi Bruce,
I understand what you mean with the wide angle. I’m not looking for something wider than the 24-70, I’m just looking for something smaller and lighter. That lens weighs a shave under a kilo on its own. There are lighter options, but they seem to be on the opposite end for quality. I don’t mind the cost if the lens is ideal but I’m concerned that with around 2kg of camera + lens, it will be a de-motivator.
I know you’re not a fan of zooms, but they are a good compromise. When you’re on a tripod with dedicated time at a landscape the primes are good and you can move around to discover new compositions.
But I do a lot of photography moving around foreign towns and cities, and I actually find the laziness comes in in another form – being too lazy to change lenses in a dynamic environment, because I will have to change back once I’m done with that shot. It’s also the fear of getting dust on the sensor, which is an inherent problem with digital that I don’t think anyone has properly solved.
From my limited understanding, the dynamic range and certainly the reduced high ISO noise (which is one reason why I’m interested in the D700) is a result of the relatively sparse pixel density they get from having 12MP on a sensor that has more than double the area. Looking around, it seems the D300 (crop sensor) has a pixel density of 3.3 million pixels / cm2, the D700 is 1.4 million pixels / cm2.
That’s bordering on measurbating as Ken Rockwell calls it. I don’t really care about the numbers, but the higher dynamic range and the massively improved high ISO performance would be two things I’d really appreciate.
I might try out the camera with the big lens and see how it weighs on me. On the plus side, I do have a 50 prime which I could put to good use. It costs about a third of the 24-70.
Comment by Niall Connaughton — 28 January, 2010 @ 7:12 pm
Hi Niall,
Did you have to dig around for those numbers, or did you simply remember them?
That zoom lens is rather heavy. The canon 24-70 is a biggie and it’s a wee bit lighter too. I do feel the Nikon lenses tend to be on the heavy side and I’ve certainly been aware that the Nikon bodies aren’t light either.
I’m unfamiliar with the product range. But there must be a 24-70 that isn’t an f2.8 beast?
Your request isn’t unreasonable…. but as in all photography-gear issues – everything is a compromise, as I’ve yet to find the ‘perfect’ camera ;-)
Good luck hunting.
ps. I thought the dust issue was solved now with the latest generation cameras. They seem to be pretty good at removing dust each time they’re switched on?
This is perhaps best suited to some gear related site….. it’s not really my area of expertise (if I have one!) LOL!
Comment by Bruce Percy — 28 January, 2010 @ 7:21 pm
Hi Bruce,
Hahah, no, I had to look them up. I wouldn’t have guessed the difference was so huge!
Yeah, there are lighter options but they’re sort of cheap consumer kit lens style options. I was hoping for something in the middle but Nikon’s not good at “in the middle”.
They’ve gotten better with the dust, maybe the later ones are better than my D200. I still get plenty of dust on mine which shows up even at f/8 now, which means it’s time to get it cleaned again.
Anyway, enough gear related talk on here, don’t want to sully your site! :P
Comment by Niall Connaughton — 28 January, 2010 @ 8:07 pm
btw, I love the colours in the photo for this post :)
Comment by Niall Connaughton — 28 January, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
Does anyone else feel it’s a wee bit sad that it’s getting just a bit too easy (technique wise at least) to create good photographic images now possible via the high dynamic ranges in the new high end digital cameras?
I just feel that part of the attraction (and success) of your workshops is learning exposure techniques, using grauated ND filters, etc., and seeing the end results of ‘thinking it through’
I personally feel good when an image ‘works’ not by accident but because I’ve considered and decided on many of the possible variant exposure possibilities.
But I still wouldnt turn my nose up at a Nikon D3!
Comment by pinkpig — 30 January, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
Hi Pinkpig,
I totally agree. I love the interaction – the involvement in the picture making process. I remember when autofocus lenses came out, a lot of people said they enjoyed focusing manually. I think it’s just the same thing…. technology moves on, but it’s up to use to choose to use it wisely.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 31 January, 2010 @ 5:22 pm