Oil on my sensor - my D800 sensor

Let me tell you a tale ...

I went out for a quick shoot earlier in the week. (You will not see any of these images as they were sharp, perfectly exposed, incredibly boring images. (But I digress.)

When I loaded them into Lightroom, I saw this stuff in the sky:

Weird, huh?

It had to be dust, so I tried blowing it away with my trusty rocket blower and did a test exposure (an f/20 shot of a blue sky). Nope, still there!

So I went to my Plan B: using a specialised electrostatically-charged brush which in the past, removed all but the most stuck-on muck. The streaks were made worse!

So I had to resort to Plan C: wet cleaning using some preprepared sensor swabs that I just happened to have ordered a few days previously. They just seemed to move the mess around.

I was stumped. It wasn't behaving like any dust, or any fibres I'd seen before (which in retrospect should have been a clue!) - so I fired up Google.

After quite a bit of trawling, I found a (very) few posts about oil on D800 sensors! Argh!! We've all heard about the problems with oil on the D600, but on an 800? This is a pro camera!!

The problem was that oil, wherever it had come from, made sense. The "smears" could have been a fluid. It also explained why the blower did nothing, a swipe with a swab didn't do much, and the brush made it worse. However, it didn't explain why a high-end, made in Japan Nikon had oil on its sensor.

So, I began by visiting  my local pharmacy and asking them for a high purity solvent. They sold me a tiny bottle of 99% pure isopropyl alcohol, which I was tempted to use on the sensor, but which I only used the wash my electrostatic brush.

After the brush dried, I used another swab on the sensor. The sensor looked better, but not great. So I used the brush - which actually improved the situation! The isopropyl alcohol had done the trick and the brush wasn't moving oil around.

With a few bits still on the sensor, I used the blower - and the sensor is now almost perfect. Good enough at least that hopefully, the camera's cleaning mode will shake off the last bits. If not, I can handle it in post.

I'm not thrilled - but at least I can use my camera.

It will be interesting to see what Nikon says about this.

Shane
in Canberra

On using the Nikon D800

It's been a while, hasn't it? This was supposed to be a fortnightly (or thereabouts) blog, but I've never achieved anything like that.

I have no excuses - so to the kind or bored souls who read my ramblings: my apologies.

Nearly a year ago, I bought a Nikon D800. It's a superb camera, but it does have its drawbacks. Firstly, in a world hankering for small and light, it's neither.

This doesn't mean that it can't be used for street photography, though!

At the British Museum

But I digress.

Also, due to its staggering 36 M sensor, it's a camera which doesn't tolerate errors. Unless my focus is pin sharp, images from it are almost useless.

This creates problems. Due to it being full frame, the depth of field compared with my old and much-beloved crop frame D300 is very shallow. This means I need small apertures / high f-numbers for anything that isn't stationary - which can be a problem as, unless I'm using a tripod, I need a high enough shutter speed to avoid camera shake.

Of course, sometimes a tripod isn't an option. This is the result of a 30 second exposure:

Shine Dome, Canberra

I've got to say that I'm in awe of modern digital cameras. Look at the contrast ratio in that shot and the colour balance. Somehow, the D800 has handled at least five different light sources and still produced a great image.

The red streak is the tail lights of a passing car. It also left a "ghost" of its roof near under the street light on the right!

Anyway - the bottom line is that every photographer needs a tripod - and a good tripod at that. I'd suggest that you go for a ball head. Just make sure it can handle the weight of any camera-lens combination you're likely to use in the future.

The other result of going full frame is the loss of focal length. Using a crop frame sensor means that the focal length of every lens is effectively changed. On a Nikon APS-C camera such as the D300, my 70-200 is effectively a 105 - 300, which is handy when trying to photograph birds. (It's not so good when going wide. My 14 - 24 was a 21 - 36 on the D300.)

Anyway ... I decided to get myself a teleconverter to try to get some "reach". I bought the Nikon x1.7 unit, which as you would expect, increases the focal length of a lens by a factor of 1.7, at a cost of losing 1.5 f-stops.

So far, I'm happy with the results. This little chap was up in a small tree and using my 70 - 200 would

Baby magpie lark

have meant either a tiny image, or the need for me to crop very hard indeed. Using my lens effectively as a 340mm telephoto,  got what is for me, an effective image.

The loss of speed due to the teleconverter isn't an issue, as I have to stop the lens down to achieve a good depth of field.

I actually worked "semi-manually" with this. I had the camera on auto ISO and manual. I selected the appropriate aperture, went for a high, 1/500 sec shutter speed and dialled in centre-weighted metering. The Nikon did the rest.

I'm no bird photographer - so I'm happy with the result.


Keep making those photographs!

Shane Baker
Canberra

Hopes in the retro camera trend

There's been endless fuss this week (and in fact, for several weeks) about Nikon's new full frame SLR, the Df and its retro look.

The good news about the Df (in my opinion) includes:

• sensor and processor apparently from the top of the line Nikon D4.
• major controls accessible through good old-fashioned knobs, which are not only easy to use, but which show at a glance where they're set. Great!
• it's smaller and lighter than many new SLRs, despite having a proper, metal body.
• it can conveniently use old Nikkor lenses.

The bad news isn't great. In Australia at least, the Df will sell for more than the 36 meg, pro body D800. And this is for a camera with fewer autofocus points than the D800, one card slot, no built-in flash and no video capability.

Ouch!

Of course, as with all things, the proof of the camera will be in the actual images produced in real situations. For this, we must wait. 

Joe McNally has posted some nice shots already - but Joe could produce great images with a box Brownie. He's no indication of how a photographer of modest (even very modest) attainment such as myself will go armed with a Df.

Time will tell - as it will also tell regarding whether this "retro" look with mechanical dials is a marketing gimmick, or a trend. Fujifilm seems to have started this with their X series cameras and they've justifiably received high praise for these cameras. Pick one an X100s for example, and you'll note metal analogue dials controlling aperture, shutter speed and exposure compensation - in a metal body. They even take an old-fashioned cable release!

I hope it's a trend. I love my D800, as I did my D300 that preceded it. Great cameras - reliable, ergonomic tools which produce great images. It's just that I'd like to be able to see what's what by glancing at a dial - as we could in the stone age.

Maybe Nikon and Fuji have realised that the film cameras they made for all those years had something going for them in the digital age: analogue controls.

Let's hope so.

Shane Baker

Gear for travelling

My wife and I recently returned from a  five week trip to Britain and France. Naturally, I saw this as a photo op as well as a holiday, and took cameras with me. Eight or nine kgs of cameras.

In 2011, we did a similar trip, where I took my Nikon D300 (a crop frame SLR) with my 24-70 f/2.8 and my then-new 14-24 f/2.8. I was surprised to discover that 90% of my images were made with the 14-24 on that trip - but bearing in mind that with the crop frame APS-C sensor, the lens is a 21-36mm equivalent lens, in retrospect that's not so surprising.

Bruge

On this trip, I took my monster D800 with those two lenses, plus a few odds and sods, including a light meter, a 50mm f/1.8 and ND and polarising filters.

I also took my new Fujifilm X100s - and seriously considered taking this alone. A friend of mine who is a mirrorless convert pushed me in that direction, and photographer Valérie Jardin had recently demonstrated it was possible to take the Fuji alone on a four week holiday. In the end, I compromised by also taking the Fuji - which is tiny by SLR standards. I also undertook to "do" Paris with the Fuji only.

So - how did it go?

Well, with the greatest respect, unless you are like Ms Jardin, a street photographer, I can't see the X100s as a replacement for an SLR. It's a brilliant camera, but the fixed focal length lens places some limitations.

Take the shot of Notre Dame to the right. A pleasant enough shot, and the camera handled to demanding light well, but the fixed 35mm equivalent lens means that I didn't get the whole edifice.

"Zoom with your feet", I hear you cry, and in many cases, that's valid. However - in places like Paris, which are awash with @#$%^*! tourists (why can't they leave people like you and mean alone?) getting back will mean including endless people - many wearing distracting colours.

The Nikon, with its wider lens would have been better in that case.

On the other hand, the Fuji came into its own capturing this candid shot in the Louvre.

Could I have got it with the D800? Probably - but I think this young woman might have noticed the big, black, intimidating camera and possibly been distracted by having it pointed at her. (The man in the image below was - and he wasn't even the subject of the shot.)

Clearly, it's horses for courses. The beauty of the Fuji is that weighs almost nothing and takes little space. It's easy to carry in your bag, or even a (capacious) jacket pocket - and it looks like your grandad's old film rangefinder, so no-one cares.

What about the D800?

Well, I'm glad I took it, but it's not a snapshot camera. With its 36 megapixel sensor, it's a demanding, unforgiving camera, and you blaze away with it at your peril.

The man on the right has noticed my D800!

On the other hand, it can produce luscious colours and detail. The images below, shot in early light in Yorkshire have a detail and depth of colour for which the D800 and its SLR kin were made.

What about lenses? Well, with the full frame D800, the 24mm setting on the 24-70 was wide enough for almost all occasions, and I only used the 14-24 once. It probably could have stayed at home.

And the other gear could have stayed as well. I didn't have time to use the filters - although the polarising filter would have been useful once or twice. I also used the light meter only once - again due to time pressures.

At times, I could have used a tripod. The weather wasn't great for much of the trip, and the need to use small apertures on the full frame D800 for necessary depth of field created problems. It's an occupational hazard. This wasn't an issue on the X100s, of course.

So, was the D800 worth it? Did I need my Kata bag (described by one friend as a "lifeboat")?

I think I did.

I could have taken the X100s only and come away with great results - if I were willing to accept the limitations of that package. The camera is more than capable of producing brilliant images in a wide range of conditions. If, like Valérie, my main interest were street photography, I would have been mad to lump along 2.5kgs of SLR - or my lifeboat.

If, on the other hand, like me, you wished to make a range of images from a wide range of subjects, the SLR remains the best option - unless you go the mirrorless, interchangeable lens route.

Maybe, I'll go that way in the future - but not yet.

Shane Baker

I was at the British museum yesterday ...

and I noted some strange behaviour from the people there.

There were the usual types with their smart phones and point and shoots, using flash on everything. This was not only distracting for the rest of us, but they were also using flash while shooting through glass.

No doubt, they will get home and curse their cameras for producing fuzzy, wildly over-exposed images - not realising that they would get better results (and longer battery life) with the flash OFF. The green setting is NOT our friend.

Unfortunately like the poor, or politicians, the flash brigade is always out in force, but there was another group: people photographing everything - and I mean that quite literally.

I watched one man with a moderately good point and shoot. He saw nothing there except the back of his camera. He would stand in front of an exhibit for as long as it took to pull focus, shoot, then do the same to the next object. He wasn't experiencing the Museum - he was making a visual collection to look at later.

Now I'd be the last person to object to photography. I'm the one carting my D800 and two heavy lenses in my Kata backpack, and I like to photograph things. But photography isn't a substitute for experience - it's a means to help preserve our memories.

While I was there, I made three photographs. Others were making hundreds.

I'll bet I had the better experience.

Good (and appropriate) shooting.

Shane

It's worth looking back on your images

Last Saturday, I went out for a dawn shoot with my friend Rod Burgess.

We weren't quite sure where we were going, but were looking for a spot with the rolling hills typical of parts of the ACT - bathed with dawn's golden light.

We stopped at a spot, and got out our gear.

Canberra sunrise - looking towards the Murrumbidgee River.

I recently heard a photographer describe landscape as being like sports shooting - and it's certainly true that at dawn and dusk, the light changes so fast that one can't relax for a moment. The light's changing, meaning that exposure changes and so do opportunities.  You've gotta keep ducking and weaving!!

I'd chosen not to use any filters was was relying on the D800's raw files and Lightroom to get the details I wanted.

I was also deliberately "exposing to the right". (I remain to be convinced on the advantages of that strategy - but that's another issue.)

During the shoot, looking at the 3" display on my Nikon, the shots had looked pretty ordinary.

Anyway, I got home and loaded the images into Lightroom - and was pleasantly surprised.
There were a few that made me feel it had been worth getting out of bed at 05:45 on a Saturday morning when there was frost on the ground! The shot here is a case in point. Nice range of colours, textures. Yeah, I was happy with that.

I put this and several other shots up on Smugmug, and relaxed.

Later that day, after tic tacking with Rod, I went back into Lightroom - and was surprised to find this:

Canberra sky at sunrise.

That's typical of the great clouds we often get in Canberra - usually when far from a camera, I might add. I was glad I was able to capture it - and more pleased that I'd gone back to look again.

Mind you, this process of revision works both ways. I had this on my Smugmug site for quite a while:

No, I don't know what I was thinking, either!

And this was posted for two or three days. Yes, it's a photograph of a platypus - but it doesn't make it worthy of inflicting on visitors to my web site.

I take slight comfort from the fact that some very well known, and very good photographers post duds too. I guess the advantage of the web is that when such a blunder is realised, we can make it go away.

So ... the lesson is to look again at your shots, hours or days later. You'll probably have more pleasant surprises than nasty shocks.

Keep shooting.

Shane

In praise of the nifty 50

Yesterday morning, I went out with a group of friends from the Southside Camera Club here in Canberra for a "Murrumbidgee River Ramble".

I came away with some acceptable images - and more importantly, neither my camera nor me fell in the drink! (If you miss the significance of this statement, please read my past couple of blogs.)

Eucalypts at sunrise, Canberra.

Anyway, after some landscapes, we repaired to the home of the Club members who had arranged the photo walk, where they provided us with a scrumptious breakfast. (Yes, life can be tough in a camera club!)

Not only did they go above and beyond in the catering department, but they allowed those of us who were interested to use their home studio gear for a little impromptu portraiture and still life work. I wandered in to see Len, the generous and patient husband of one of our members, being photographed.

Well, I couldn't let this pass - but as my semi-aquatic 24-70 is in transit from Nikon, I plonked my "nifty 50" (Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 lens) on my D800 and had a try.

I'm delighted with my results.

Len

The images are sharp, have true colour and good contrast - and were made with a Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D, a lens that sells in Australia for  $A127. Even its up-market brother, the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G sells for $A250 - which is a fraction of the price of my admittedly wonderful 24-70 f/2.8.

Len

The message is clear. As much as I like three or four of my landscapes from yesterday, I love a couple of the portraits of the long-siffering Len. I hope he does too.

Clearly, I have to get off my backside and do more portraiture. And I've got to use my cheap, light and unobtrusive little nifty 50 more often, as well.

If you haven't got a 50, think about getting one. They're a steal!

Shane