F'in iStock...

I'm not a major iStock contributor. Partly because I'm lazy and don't want to deal with all the filing and keywording. Though, whenever I do upload to iStock, it can be so frustrating at times, I really don't put much effort into making 'stock' ready shots anymore.

My predictions, D700s and maybe D700x

Ever since canon unleashed the 5D mk II with a 21 megapixel sensor, nikon fanboys have been left feeling a little envious of canons' offering. Since the release of the new 5D, nikon came out with a truly professional offering of their own in the 24mp D3X. A camera that has been giving medium format digital backs a run for their money. It is however, out of reach for most shooters, especially hobbyists who really don't use their gear for income. For working professionals, it's seen as a true bargain. Nikon users still wanted an affordable 24mp camera in a D700 sized body. Will they deliver? probably. Will it be affordable? Not as affordable as the current d700 nor the new canon 5D, but more affordable than the D3X.

We will eventually see a D700s some time this year. Sooner than one might think. Even though I have no concrete proof of the rumors nor do I have any contacts at nikon, it's just a gut feeling that many other nikon shooters have as well. It will be priced two hundred dollars higher than a regular D700, will included the D3s sensor as well as (sigh) 720p video. Maybe nikon will surprise all of us and include 1080p? who knows?

Eventually we will probably see a 24mp sensor in a semi pro body like the D700, but at a likely msrp of $5000. Don't expect this camera to compete with the 5D MKII at its' price point. Can you imagine nikon offering a d3x sensor in a small body for less than $3000? what would be the point of buying a D3x then? nikon isn't stupid. That would seriously cannibalize sales of their flagship. Nikon does not want to play the cheap megapixel battle, they have the right focus in mind, and that's improving image quality. All across the net, canon users have been finding all sorts of image quality issues with their high pixel cameras. Excessive noise and banding, all at low ISO values! The 40D is still sought after because it has better IQ than the 50D, 7D and to some extent matches that of the new 1D MK IV. I have no personal experience with these cameras and have only read from others test results, most of whom are loyal canon shooters.

Nikon with its' 12mp sensor is still doing relatively well. They have a less affordable option for professionals seeking quality near medium format in the D3x. Like I mentioned earlier, any true professional with a working income with photography will make back that $8000 easily.

I'm tired of hearing about fake nikon professionals whining about more affordable megapixels and threatening to switch camp. To be honest, most of these whiners aren't really serious about photography and for the most part, don't really know what they want. I'd be happy to buy their nikon d40 so that they can switch to canon.

Orc lady

Here is a sped up desktop capture of my working in Photoshop.



The initial sketch was handled in Illustrator. I found nice ink-like settings within the program that felt very natural and till now, I still prefer to sketch that way over photoshop. The paint job was then executed in Photoshop, using my Wacom Intuos4 Medium Pen Tablet. I know some of you digital comic book colorists enjoy the tedium of the mouse though, an industry standard, you have little choice to do it any other way. This sketch is down and dirty and I probably would only recommend this style for quick conceptual executions.

Carl Zeiss 35mm f2 Distagon for Nikon mount

Not long ago, I wrote about the awesome Zeiss 100mm f2 makro planar. Despite modern marvels such as silent autofocus and vibration reduction, Zeiss makes lenses which, in comparison seem old fashioned. They are manual focus, offers no VR and aren't even weather sealed. For manual prime lenses exceeding a thousand bucks, it's a lot to ask for a metal lens with zero features. I tell you what, if zeiss charged double what they charge now, it'd still be worth the price!

Nikon DK-17M viewfinder

In hopes of improving my manual focusing skills, I recently replaced my factory focusing screen in favor of Katz Eye split prism screen, for my D700. This only helped a little and generally everything must focus in the center of the frame then recompose. Unfortunately, it's the only advantage over the factory screen as it doesn't even offer Optibrite (which helps brighten the scene, making it especially helpful for low light shooting) Why they didn't include Optibrite option for the D700 is beyond me. In all honesty I enjoy eyeballing the entire frame and focus where I wanted to, without having to recompose. Shooting at f2.0, it is difficult to recompose especially, on a lens such as the zeiss 100mm f2 makro and those f1.4 primes, because depth of field is so thin, any shifts you make will throw your original focus spot out of whack.

Enter Nikon DK-17M Magnifying Eyepiece (the 'M' is important, it means magnification/magnifier ) Don't purchase the regular DK-17 as it's just a factory replacement. The DK-17M helps viewfinder magnification by 1.5x. This is very helpful when you use manual focus lenses. In my opinion, It's more helpful than the Katz Eye screen. Sometimes I hardly even see the stupid prism in the middle, and again, I just eyeball the entire frame and shoot what I think is in focus. With the DK-17M, I have a better look at what's in focus. If subjects or objects are too far away, I'll use Live view for critical focus at wide open apertures.

The Eyepiece is only available for pro level cameras such as the D700 and D3 (S and X).

Katz Eye focusing screen on D700

The Katz Eye split prism screen arrived on my desk just a few minutes ago and, already it's in my D700. Unlike a lot of people out there, who for many valid reasons, don't have it in them to do the swap. It's a daunting and intimidating feat. Even for those who are brave, need a shot of whiskey to calm their nerves and hands.

Already having done this before, with my D3X (type E screen), tackling the D700 was a piece of cake.

After I fitted the katz eye screen onto the d700, I started to take a few test shots. To my disappointment the focus was way off! A quick search on google netted plenty of positive results and was fairly easy to remedy. It was the metal shim that went between the screen and prism! Having that removed made things better, instantly.

So far, I may need to get used to it as I'm still having trouble nailing focus on people standing 15-20 ft away. I wanted optimal focus at f2.0 using my zeiss 100mm makro. I feel what I need to get next is the DK-17 viewfinder magnifier.

Update: Apparently, I was wrong to remove the metal shim. Those are there to calibrate the viewfinder. Every DSLR from nikon has some degree of adjustments needed to calibrate the viewfinder and metal shims are in place to fix that. Some have one, or two or three. Luckily, I have one. I was instructed by Katz eye to put it back in. My initial installation was likely wrong and that's why I had serious back/front focus. Now putting it back seems to work well. Only thing I messed up on was more dirt got onto the screen than I would expected and also there is a hairline scratch by the focus screen tab. At least focus accuracy is better now.

Bad couple of weeks if you like Apple and Nikon

Pretty disappointing news these past couple of weeks, especially if you're a nikon shooter who edits on a mac. Expectations were very high, products presented were very weak.

Zeiss 35mm f2 or 50mm f2?

I recently sold my nikon 17-35 2.8. I felt it lacking in resolution, especially shot wide open. It's fairly soft in the middle and in the corners, vignettes like hell and too heavy to act as a walkaround lens. It's better for tripod huggers since and especially when stopped down to f8, it's free of all softness throughout a 35mm frame.

I was set on getting a 50mm f2 makro-planar when I ran into the 35mm distagon, which gave me some pause for reconsideration. Let me explain why.

My 100mm f2 makro covers the telephoto end for portraits, products and macro work. I needed a shorter and more versatile lens for walk-around. Say, when I'm around the city, a lens that could allow me to shoot buildings, minor landscape, people, portraits and on occasion, very close up. At first I thought maybe, the 50mm f2 makro would be perfect for all of what I need, but then realized its' focal length is similar to my 100/2. The 100/2, in my earlier posts, is perfect for portraits and close up but, needed something wider and 50/2 isn't wide enough for my next lens.

The 35mm f2 would not only replace my 17-35 at the long end, it's also much lighter, damn sharper, has better bokeh and renders richer colors, all from what I've read. I will find out soon enough how good this lens is, and I have a feeling it's not going to disappoint. Don't get me wrong, I'll eventually get the 50/2 makro, but because I already own a 100/2, the 50mm range is of no priority for me. The 35/2 will satisfy my longing for some real decent walkaround shooting.

I'll post some pics once I get it next week.