Here’s an example. This isn’t a great shot because the bollard behind the bike is throwing off the composition. I could try and Photoshop it out but it’s a fairly complicated job and not really worth it. I could have just not taken the shot. After all, it’s not perfect and I’m sure lots of people online would be quick to point that out (using far less friendlier language) Instead though I decided to see what I could make of it.

Here are some shots from different angles, different framing, close-up, wide, portrait and landscape. It’s all good practice to help you see subjects in different ways.

I think people have this idea that pro’s turn up to take a shot, take one and it’s done. That’s not the case at all though. I remember a few years ago I was at the Apple Expo in Paris and they had a fashion shoot in the middle of the floor. I was amazed at how much set up and test shots the Photographer did before he got the look he wanted and before he even started. If you read a lot of forums and certain blogs online you might get into the habit of thinking you’re a terrible Photographer if every shot isn’t perfect first time, or if you spend too long trying to get the shot. I think this is also a problem when you work or shoot with friends who aren’t photographers. I can’t count the number of time’s I’ve been asked to hurry up, or “why are you taking so many pictures”. This can lead (for some) to disenchantment and not taking the shot at all. It’s ironic, because the reality is the exact opposite.

But it’s worth it to take lots of shots. Move around. When you think you’ve got it covered, try one more thing. Be constantly trying to get out of your comfort zone. Here I saw this nice shot of some flags that were being back-lit. I tried a few different angles. Eventually I was about to move on but instead I got up on the path and right in against the wall (and in the way of a none to pleased busker) and took it again from a different angle

Here’s some of the cool multicoloured building behind.

Again, these aren’t spectacular images, but at least I took something, and it helped me think outside the box.

Sometimes too you’ll see a shot that might look a bit interesting but you think it will be fairly bland and you’ll think to ignore it. But don’t. Even if you don’t like it you can always try different versions in post production. Sometimes what looks dull and bland in colour can work really well as a black and white. Doing this can help you see texture and depth beyond the colour you normally see.

Not that interesting in colour, but here’s the same shot in black and white and it’s much more interesting.

At the end of the day, especially if you’re shooting digital, remember that if a shot’s not perfect it doesn’t matter as long as you have it. You can always throw it away later if you don’t like it. You can’t though if you never took it in the first place. And, when you do take the shot, take a few more while you’re at it. We all hear the suggestion, but it’s easy to forget to do it. If take just one thing from this rambling hodge podge of suggestions let it be this. The next time you are out with you’re camera and you see something interesting but don’t think it’s worth taking you’re camera out for – take the it out anyway, and before you move on take at least one extra shot of it from a different angle or a different framing.

Related posts:

1. Photography related links for September 28th
2. Web Roundup for July 22nd
3. Photography Related Links, The Really Really Late Edition

To cut to the chase, I love the D90. It may not be the most technically capable camera out there but it’s certainly one of the most enjoyable to use. I had originally planned to only use it for times when I needed a lighter alternative to my 5D, but I found myself using it all the time. One of the things that really surprised me was the quality of the kit lens. Normally those lenses are not particularly good but the 18-105 that comes with the D90 is excellent. It has some minor chromatic aberration issues but the stabiliser is superb and images from it are amazingly sharp. In fact I was amazed that I was often able to get better results from this combination than from my canon 5D and its L-Series 24-105 lens. Of course when I wrote about this at the time I was set upon by Canon fans who insisted I was doing something wrong and obviously a terrible photographer (despite the numerous other professionals who also had focus issues with the 5d) Actually, the autofocus on the D90 is excellent, especially compared to what I was used to. And the D90 doesn’t even use the more elaborate of Nikon’s focus systems.

I had planned not to buy any more lenses over the year until I came to my decision on whether to stick with Canon or switch wholesale to Nikon, but in the end I couldn’t resist (although I tried to stick within a budget and only buy the more inexpensive products.) I first bought the excellent 18-200VR lens from Nikon. This is truly a superb lens. It may not be the sharpest, but considering the focal range it’s pretty damn good. Having that range in a single lens is incredibly useful. It’s my main walking around lens now and any time I head out for a walk with my camera it’s usually attached to it. I also bought the 50mm f/1.8 which isn’t very good in my opinion. My other lens purchases were a second hand sigma 10-20mm and more recently the Nikon 35mm f/1.8. The sigma is a great lens and the 35mm is very sharp although it has some severe chromatic aberration and fringing problems. You can work around these if you’re careful, but it’s a bit of a let down considering how sharp the lens is.

The idea of the experiment though, was to see if I liked the Nikon way of doing things, the layout of controls, the ergonomics and the handling. The answer is a resounding yes. I had always found the 5D like using a sledge hammer to hammer in a nail. It was clunky and cumbersome, and while you can get fantastic shots from it, I never felt a sense of synergy with the camera. With the D90 it’s the complete opposite. The camera becomes an extension of your arm. It’s so well designed from an ergonomic point of view that I don’t know how I ever used anything else. I particularly like the fact that you can operate most of the controls one handed. I find the main control dial’s position under the thumb much better than the placement of Canon’s rear control dial, which is very easy to turn by accident. I also like the fact that you can zoom in to check sharpness during image review without having to hit play first (which annoys me no end on my 5D). Another really useful feature is to be able to turn the front control dial during image review to switch between full screen, full screen with clipping warning and histogram. Again, the whole one handed operation is very user friendly. Another thing I love is the two button combination to format the card. It’s such a simple thing yet it saves you so much time.

Over the course of the year though I did find a few annoyances with it. The colour balance can occasionally be a little off and colours can sometimes look over saturated or false looking. I find it particularly noticeable in the blues. I think it’s because the camera is very sensitive to what white balance setting you have set. Much more so than any Canon I have used. When you set it for daylight and it becomes slightly cloudy or overcast you can see the difference, whereas on the Canons I have used it is usually fine. On the other hand the vibrance can be stunning on subjects that accentuate it such as flowers. I really like the way it renders greens in particular. I’ve found too that the exposure can be a little biased towards under exposure and you have to compensate for that. Then again, you can set a permanent offset in the menus, which is really cool (although I don’t use that feature). I have found too that it really struggles with areas of high contrast. When you have sky in the picture and a darker foreground such as a building, and you’re using matrix metering it will often blow out the sky. My 5D usually do a much better job and get both reasonably in range. Overall though, the metering is pretty good, but not perfect.

The other big disappointment is the video. Now, I know some will argue that you buy a camera for the stills and video is just a bonus, but it’s pretty bad, especially in comparison to the 5D MarkII (but more on that in a minute)

There is a line skipping issue and severe aliasing that renders anything with fine detail almost completely useless.
The much reported “jelly-cam” effect is pretty severe too and makes hand held video without the use of a stabiliser useless. It’s a shame because it really is useful having video on a DSLR.

Over the course of the year I’ve taken some really nice shots with the D90. I brought it to New York as my sole camera, coupled with my 18-200 and 10-20. I got some great shots with it. On a trip to Glendalough, a national park in Wicklow, I brought my 5D and the D90 but ended up using the D90 for most of the shots. As you can tell, I really like the D90. So does this mean I’ve made the decision to switch full time to Nikon? Well, unfortunately not just yet. I had some jobs in August and September that required me to shoot video so I ended up buying a 5D Mark II. My reasoning at the time seemed sound. The one thing I was missing from the D90 was the look you get from full frame. I could have bought a D700 but I really needed video and I was wooed by the promise of 21 megapixels. On top of that I really couldn’t afford to buy a D700 and the new lenses I would need to take advantage of it.

I haven’t given up on Nikon altogether though. Despite the 5DII being technically superior to the D90 I still find myself reaching for the D90 more often. The D90 is a nice and light camera and perfect when you just want to have something with you to take pictures and not be weighed down. Together with the 18-200 it provides a great walking around system.

At the end of the day I need a professional level camera to replace my original 5D on which the screen is failing. Unfortunately the D90 is not a pro level camera, although you can get pro level results from it. Don’t get me wrong, I was never under any impressions that it was. Do I regret my purchase of the D90? Not at all. It’s one of the best cameras I’ve ever owned. Do I regret getting the 5D Mark II ? Well, on the one hand it was for specific jobs so I have made my money back on it, but on the other hand I don’t think it’s as great a camera as many people make it out to be. I wish Canon had waited a year and put the 5D sensor, perhaps with a few less megapixels in the 7D’s body. I don’t want to spend too much time going on about the 5DII’s failings because that’s not what this is about (I’ll write about it more when I work up the courage to deal with the onslaught of 5D fans) Still, I have it now and I’m making the best of it. You can get spectacular Images out of it if you know how to work around its limitations and the video is far superior to what Nikon currently offer (with the possible exception of the D3s).

At the end of the day it all comes down to this. I know someone is going to make the argument that cameras are just tools and any good photographer should be able to use any camera but that is not the point. Sure you can use any camera, but that doesn’t mean you would want to. A painter who paints in oils might just as well be able to paint a masterpiece with pastels, but that doesn’t mean he or she would enjoy the experience. Yes, absolutely the camera is just a tool and I can use either camera to take great pictures. This isn’t about lusting after the next best thing rather than focussing on the art, but rather finding the brush I’m most comfortable using and the one I enjoy the most. After all, art should be about enjoyment of the process, not just the results.

For the moment then I will remain a two system shooter. I use my 5D II for serious work or studio shoots and my D90 for anything where I need a lightweight alternative. I would love to try the more professional Nikon body such as the D300 or D700, but for now I’m happy with the D90 for what I use it for. For anyone considering a new camera I couldn’t recommend the D90 more. It’s a fantastic camera. The images it produces are superb and it’s a complete joy to use.

Related posts:

1. Thoughts on the D300s and other Nikon Announcements
2. In a World of Digital Cameras, Technology Does Matter.
3. DpReview Tests The Powershot G11

Unfortunately, yes it does.

In my opinion there are three major issues regarding autofocus on the 5D. The first is actually getting your shots in focus. Now a lot of the time it works fine depending on the subject. However there are plenty of situations where the camera will either tell you the shot is in focus and it won’t be or it simply won’t lock. These are often not particularly tricky scenes or low contrast situations. For example, I tried to focus on the berries in the centre of frame in this tree shot below. There is a clearly high contrast area and the surrounding branches are well out of the way of the focus point and yet the camera decided it would focus on the branch instead. My nikon D90 on the other hand has no problem with a scene like this and will get it right every time.

Now, fans of the 5D will argue that this is a terrible photograph (I’m only using it to illustrate a point) and no good photographer would ever take a photograph like that and that I just don’t know what I’m doing. But you know what, it’s not rocket science. You put the focus point over the area you want in focus and press the focus button (or the shutter release half way). There’s not really a lot of things you can do wrong. Not every photograph everyone takes at every time is a work of art either, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be in focus. Of course this is just one example. There are plenty of times when I’ve tried to focus on someone’s eye and the camera has focussed on their cheek instead despite the lock clearly being on their eye.

Then again there are times when it focuses perfectly. It’s the inconsistency that is a big part of the problem.

The second big issue is the layout of the focus points. The autofocus module is essentially the same as the Canon 20D from many years ago, which was designed for cropped sensor cameras. As such the focus points are all clustered in the centre of the larger full frame view finder.

This pretty much negates focussing on anything outside the middle of the frame without recomposing. Of course, again the fans will tell you that the centre point is all you really need, but this is bull. If you’re an experienced Photographer you know the merits of using all your focus points properly. Unfortunately the layout on the 5d is far from optimal.

The third big issue is that different people have different definitions of what is sharp. Some people will argue that almost sharp is good enough. These same people will complain about “pixel peeping”, where you look at your images at 100% on a computer monitor, because that doesn’t reflect how most people will view the image. Of course many shots will look sharp zoomed out because most software sharpens to compensate for the antialiasing, so you can’t tell if an image is truly sharp unless you zoom in. any pro worth their salt will check image sharpness at 100%. If you want to get tack sharp images on the 5D reasonably reliably you really need to stop down a few stops. If you want to shoot at maximum aperture (f2.8 etc) then you will be better off manually focussing for consistency sake.

I’m not the only one who thinks this either. There have been some high profile Photographers who have defected from Canon precisely because of this problem. Most recently wedding photographer Chenin Boutwell announced that she was switching to Nikon because, as she puts it:

“Let me preface this next part by saying that I am a hard-core stickler for sharp images; “A little soft,” or “a little back-focused” is not ok by me. It’s tack sharp or it get’s the hose. So, as you can imagine, the 5d became quite a handicap for me. But, nonetheless, I figured out that if I only shot on One Shot and kept my aperture up, I could make in-focus photos.

Despite my near-constant frustration with Canon, I held out for the mythical 5d Mark II – a camera that promised even better ISO, an even bigger sensor, an even fancier LCD and (you guessed it), the same crappy focusing system. At that point, Canon had me by the you-know-whats (I don’t actually have you-know-whats… it’s a euphemism, silly) – I had *thousands* invested in lenses (see below). So I shot my 5d Mark II for the entire 2009 wedding season…. on One-Shot…. using a high aperture… constantly cussing under my breath.”

This pretty much mirrors my experience with the 5Ds (both of them).

Here’s a link to what renowned conference photographer James Duncan Davidson said about the 5D’s autofocus last year when it came out (He himself having moved to Nikon at least partially due to focus issues with the Eos 1DS)

This isn’t meant to be an anti-canon post. You can get great images from the 5D if you’re willing to work around its limitations. I’m not trying to say the 5D2 can’t produce sharp images, because it can. It all depends on how you use it. Having said that, despite what some enthusiasts would like you to believe, the Camera does have limitations (and unfortunately autofocus isn’t the only one, but more on that another time). If you are considering buying this camera I strongly recommend that you try it, or even rent it before you buy it, as it may not be for you. Don’t let the promise of 21 megapixels woo you because that won’t really matter much if your images aren’t sharp. If you take landscape shots primarily and generally manual focus then the focussing won’t be a problem and this may well be the camera for you, but if you need a reliable autofocus system then I strongly suggest you look elsewhere.

Related posts:

1. Apple finally adds support for Nikon D300s and Canon 7D
2. Rebel Without a Cause
3. Canon 5D Mark II “Cinema” Firmware now Available

Even though I shot RAW + JPEG for lot of shots, having Active-D on full lowers the exposure significantly, and in already poor light this ratchets up the noise, and dramatically reduces the quality of the shots. So much for that Idea. I could have labelled this post as “How Not to review a lens”. Still though, I did get some good photographs out of the mornings shootings.

My set-up mistakes aside, what about the lens?

Like I said earlier, having such a wide lens really changes how you look at things. DP Review gave this lens a good review, but I’m not sure I agree with them. It seems soft to me, but it’s inconsistent. It’s possibly a back focus issue, as some shots were fairly sharp, but others were not, and I was stopped down. Sharp areas of the frame were not where I had the focus point, so like I said, it could possibly be a back focus issue. Still, I got the lens for a very good price and it’s more than useable. I will have to do more tests, and on a proper shoot before I make the final judgement on it. I’m going to be using it in a proper shoot in about a weeks time so I’ll see then. For now though, if you are considering this lens, I suggest that unless you’re getting it for a good price, I would look at the Nikon (or canon) alternatives first, even though they may cost a little more.

Related posts:

1. Sigma Lens Tests – Take 2
2. Some Quick Nikon 35mm f1.8 Lens Tests
3. Are the Canon 5D Focus Problems Real?