DIY Weather Proofing for your Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | A

It's no secret that the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | A is one of my favorite lenses. It's just a good lens. It's well built, beautifully designed, and most importantly the image quality from the lens is second to none. Click the link for my review of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | A.

Anyway... This isn't an updated review on the lens, but whenever I see discussions about this lens on camera forums all over the web invariably argument, "well the Nikon/Canon 35mm f/1.4 versions are weather sealed" comes up. I've got a quick and easy solution for that.

With fall and winter coming, the weather tends to get cooler and wetter. So what I have here is a simple do-it-yourself way to weather seal your Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | A. The best part is that it's probably better than Nikon or Canon's factory weather sealing. It also protects against minor impact damage keeping your lens in perfect shape. You can't say that about Nikon or Canon's weather seals.

Let's get down to it. First you need a beer koozie. Or can-cooly, beer sleeve, or can-cooler if you prefer (if you're an Aussie you might know these things as a "stubby holder"). Secondly you need a pair of scissors. That's it.

The great thing about beer koozies is that you can get them for free at just about any event. So weather proofing your $900 Sigma lens won't cost you one red cent! Can't beat that.

Instructions:

1. Take the beer koozie in your hand. It should be folded flat naturally. 
2. Notice the bottom part. Take the scissors and cut that bottom part off. 
3. Slide the koozie over the lens like it was a can of beer. 

That's it! It's really that simple. The neoprene koozie is water resistant and takes the impact of the occasional bump that can often happen to a lens. Just to clarify, this does not make your lens waterproof, but it will protect your lens from splashes and light rain and snow. Of course this works best if you also have a weather sealed camera body. 

So, let's take a look. 

First of all here's the naked Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | A

Here's your beer koozie. I like the Sailor Jerry brand because it has that old school tattoo look. You can choose one that fits your own personality, like a sports team, a company logo, your favorite beer brand, or whatever free koozie that you have on hand!

A typical beer koozie is the perfect length to fit the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | A lens leaving enough room to attach the lens hood. Coincidence or design?!?

Once your beer koozie is on the lens and the lens is attached to the camera, slide it down to help seal the lens mount. 

There you have it. Not only is your lens weather proofed it's also stylish! I had pinstripes added to the lens hood for extra old school hot-rod appeal (guaranteed to add at least 10hp to your camera!)

A few things you should know before putting one of these on your lens. 

1. You will not be able to access the M/AF button on the lens. Don't worry, just about every camera has one on the body. 
2. You won't be able to see the distance scale on the lens. How many people use these on AF lenses? I don't. 
3. Due to the awesome HSM motor the focus ring does not turn when autofocusing so don't worry about the koozie impeding autofocus functions. I've had mine on for two years with no problems!
4. The focus ring is on the front part of the lens. You can still manually focus by firmly gripping the front of the lens and turning the focus ring. At first the koozie will be tight and you will have some resistance, but in time it will loosen up and turn freely. 

*This DIY weather proofing may or may not work with your zoom lenses. I haven't tried it on any of my zooms, but I'm guessing it will be a pain in the butt. This may work well with other prime lenses of similar size. Again, I haven't tried it on any of my other primes because most of them are too small or too big. If your lens doesn't have an HSM, AF-S, USD, PZD, EF-S or some other type of lens motor that doesn't require the focus ring to turn I would not use this.

Edit: After using this koozie on the 35mm for a couple of years it got pretty loose. I removed it and replaced it with a new one. I tried the old one on my Sigma 24-105 f/4 | A and it works brilliantly. 

New and improved full color koozie!

The old loose koozie on the 24-105

The Nikon D750 preview

Well, I was really hoping that Nikon was going to surprise me with a D4 sensor in a D810 compact pro body, but as I mentioned before in my Nikon Df review Nikon would never do that again. Basically Nikon got everyone all psyched up for the D750, which sounded like the D700 replacement and let us down with what is basically a D620.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of really good upgrades such as a tilt-screen, better video, the amazing D4s 51-point AF system, highlight-weighted metering, Expeed 4, power aperture in Live View and more, but they jammed it into a consumer body with a non-pro build and an awkward layout (if you're used to the pro bodies). If you're advancing up through the D7000-D600 series cameras you're going to be right at home, so for many folks this body will be great as an upgrade camera or as a complementary camera to a D600/610.

For those of us who are really used to the D700/D800 style bodies this was a pretty big miss from Nikon. Things we're missing on a real D700 replacement are dedicated ISO/QUAL/WB/BKT top mounted buttons, a full magnesium alloy body, a body that's a little larger for a nice solid grip that doesn't cramp your hands when shooting for extended periods. A mode button that only has PSAM and none of the scene and effects modes that most pros and advanced shooters find unnecessary. And very importantly a camera that was killer in low light with a fast frame rate of 8fps or better.

Looking at the D750 as a whole it's a really great camera, but the D750 is what the D600 should have been in the first place. And after all of the D600 issues and the quick "upgrade" to D610 I think Nikon is simply trying to bury the stigma of the D600 moniker by laying it to rest and trying to associate it with one of their best cameras, the D700.

It looks like there will be no lightweight alternative to the D4s, but I knew that all along, but didn't want to believe it.

We're still an hour away from the official release, but photos and an official Nikon video have been leaked already. Check 'em out below.

Edit: Official specs have leaked as well:

• Tilt the screen, including a change in the diaphragm in the live view mode, Wi-Fi, and D610
• Size: 5.5 "x 4.4" x 3.1 "(139.7 x 111.76 x 78.74mm)
• Weight: 1 lb 10.5 oz (751.26g)
• 24.3 megapixel FX CMOS sensor specifications
• EXPEED 4 Image Processor
• 1080p 24/25/30/50 / 60p
• Recording ISO, shutter speed, and aperture manually control
• Uncompressed HDMI (8-bit 4: 2: 2)
• Flat profile picture
• ISO 100-12,800 (Lo 1 is ISO 50 plus (?), Hi 1 and 2 up to ISO 51,200)
• 91K RGB metering, center-weighted metering / Spot metering / highlights weighted metering
• Advanced Scene Recognition System
• Group area AF
• 6.5 fps at full resolution
• Built-in Wi-Fi
• Eye-Fi card support
• Image transmission over wired communication unit transmits the UT-1 through 5 WT-radio transmitters Wireless Image / Ethernet
• Body separately $ 2300 / $ 3596 basic lens kit

The Nikon D750 from Andrew Reid on Vimeo.

Nikon D3300 quick review

I picked up the Nikon D3300 a few days ago and we finally had nice enough weather today so I could go strolling around downtown Austin testing the D3300 out along with new 18-55 collapsible kit lens. I need another week or two to come up with a full review, but so far this camera is knocking my socks off!

Digital photography technology is starting to plateau and the new camera updates don't seem like much because a lot of the changes are starting under the hood. Nikon has realized that 24MP is about the right size for a DX sensor, the best compromise between resolution without making files sizes unmanageable.  With the D7100 Nikon started to ditch the Optical Low-Pass Filter - OLPF (aka "blur filter") because the resolution is high enough to deal with the issue of moiré. The OLPF was made to kill this effect by creating a slight blur. With the D7100, the D5300, and now the D3300 the OPLF has been done away with. This allows the sensor to resolve very fine detail with more clarity, as you can see in the photo below. In cameras with lesser resolution if there were no OLPF the image below would have rife with moiré and aliasing. As you can see, there is none.

click to view larger

The difference between the D3200 with the OLPF and the D3300 without is pretty apparent. Looking in at 100%, the amount of detail is incredible. The difference in image quality between the entry-level cameras and high-end model is not a huge stretch as it used to be. D3300 and the flagship DX camera the D7100 are both nearly identical any my research as well as others like DxO Mark show that the D3300 performs in some ways better than the D7100, which costs twice what the D3300 does (of course the build quality and handling are much different).

In any case the even when shooting JPEGs (no LR5 RAW support yet), I've noticed that the image quality of the D3300 is nothing less than astounding. The photos are sharp as a razor, the color  is contrasty and vibrant even using SD Picture Control, but it's not overboard. The Auto-WB is amazingly accurate even in odd lighting situations like the one in the image shown below that has a super blue sky, warm sunlight and cool shadows all right on top of each other.

click to view larger

The dynamic range of the Nikon D3300 is very good in JPEG mode and with RAW support should show a vast improvement. As you can see in this image of the 6th Street Cowboy and Mule, even though the light was very harsh, and the dynamic range was probably about 12-14 EV, the D3300 JPEGs captured the shadow and highlight details very well even without Active D-Lighting.

click to view larger

The D5300 also comes with a newly designed kit lens. The lens is collapsible to make it smaller (something that Leica did since the 30's to keep the camera pocketable when not in use). When the lens is collapsed it's about 1/2" shorter than the original VR kit lens, and its also skinnier and lighter. The AF-S on this lens is so quiet I found myself aiming at something at a different distance just to make sure it was working! So the AF-S has been refined but it's still a cheaper version than the Silent-Wave motor in the more expensive lenses. The focus ring still rotates when focusing, but the front element does not. It seems a tad faster at focusing than the previous versions as well.

The lens is crazy sharp. Although the lens design supposedly didn't change from the original, I can see that it's sharper right off the bat. It's quite noticeable. It's very good wide open and at f/8-11 it's phenomenal. If sharpness is your thing this kit lens is it. If you don't need a fast lens or a tele this may be then only lens you ever need buy. This D33000 + 18-55 VR II lens combo produces highly detailed and clinically sharp images. Stopped down to f/8 this lens compares to my 50mm Zeiss Planar f/2. And that's saying something!

The real downside to this lens is the terrible distortion, I mean really bad. I'm not one that goes looking for distortion, but with this lens it's almost unacceptable. At 18mm to compensate for the distortion I have to dial in +22 on the Distortion slider in the Lens Corrections module in Lightroom 5. My Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 at 18mm needs almost no correction (+0.5 to 2mm at most). If you're shooting JPEG or using Nikon Capture NX2 you can enable the Auto distortion control, but then your frames start losing edges. Distortion is pretty easy to correct in post, so it's not a deal-breaker, but it is definitely not the lens for shooting things with lots of straight lines, such as architecture.

The D3300 is very small and light but it still feels good in your hands, even for someone like me with big ol' paws. It handles very nice. It's comfortable to hold and shoot with and the buttons are well laid out in Nikon style. If you're not attracted to the idea of mirrorless cameras and you want a DSLR with a real optical viewfinder this is Nikon's smallest and lightest offering.

The 11 point AF module is tried and true, but still kinda tough to see especially when it's very bright or very dark. I wish the AF brackets would light up instead of the little dots. The AF has a good amount of coverage (ahem, better than the D600/610 and Df...). I would be great AF brackets would stay lit in dark as it's really hard to tell where the active point is until you start focusing. The AF works pretty well in low light. Of course the center cross point is more responsive and faster to hit focus than the outer points. In daylight it nails focus no problems

The EXPEED 4 image processor pushes this camera ahead of the D3200 by allowing a faster frame rate of 5fps (which is pretty darn good), it also allows the D3300 to record full HD 1080p at 60fps, and one of the most important features to me is that the EXPEED 4 processor enables cleaner high ISO files. The D3300 is a bit better than the D5300 maybe 1/3 stop, but it's an easy 1stop better than the D7100. The D3300 actually performs at the same level or better as both the D5300 and the D7100, the only thing it's bested at is about 1 stop better in dynamic range. Considering all of these cameras have the same sensor the EXPEED 4 is doing some good things. The 5300 has EXPEED 4 as well, but somehow the D3300 still gets a slight edge.

Being entry-level camera there are a few things left out, but to be honest the menu options are sparse and there are lots of things that should have been left in and it would have been easy to do so. The default for AF-C being focus priority with no option to change is very bad. No guide lines option, t's a personal choice, but it helps me to keep things straight. For some reason I look into the VF and a weird angle and if I don't watch it my shots will be slightly crooked. Anyway, the whole CSM isn't and there are a lot of good options in the CSM in the cameras above. Also no "My Menu" option which is one of the best features on entry-level camera like the D5300 because it's allows you to set your favorite options so you don't have to menu dive.

This quick review went a little longer than I expected, so I'm gonna cut it here. I'll post a more thorough review when I get a few more shooting scenarios with it, especially in the low light. But so far I'm very impressed with this little camera and I have no reservations recommending to to anyone.

click to view larger

click to view larger

High ISO test. Nikon Dƒ vs. Nikon D700

My D700 is 5 years old. It was the first D700 in Austin TX off the truck and out the door. I've shot well over half-million images on this one D700 alone (I had the shutter replaced right around the 500,000 mark). It's time give the ol' girl a rest and bring in a new workhorse and I chose the Dƒ as my D700's successor. I've had all of the other small-body Nikon FX cameras, but I didn't think any of them bested the D700 which was why I stuck with it. Like a lot of people I was hoping that a D4 in a D800 body would come out, but that's not going to happen and the Dƒ just happens to fit in with what I'm looking for in a camera for the most part. No, it's not perfect, but it's the closest thing to a D700 that Nikon is going to release, for awhile at least, and I have no interest in lugging around a D4 (nor spending $6K on one).

Anyway, I don't want to get into a detailed review on the Dƒ just yet. I'm still working on getting familiar with it and I want to get a few more shoots under my belt with it. I had a little time on my hands tonight so I decided to do a quick and dirty high ISO shoot out between the new Nikon Dƒ and the old standby for low-light shooting the D700.

I love my D700 and it has stood the test of time. It's been my go-to camera for low-light concert photography as well as sports and just about everything else. Suffice it to say I've always been impressed with the D700's performance when the light gets low and the ISO's are cranked. But I just had to see how the Dƒ stacked up against the D700 when it came to ISO.

I shot each image at f/8 using a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | A using a tripod and remote release. The Dƒ images are on the left and the D700 on the right. The images were shot using fine JPG with NR and sharpening off. They were imported into Lightroom 5 and the default LR5 color noise reduction and sharpening was applied. I would have preferred to use RAW, but as of yet there's no RAW support.

The images from each respective camera are pretty much equal all the way up to ISO 1600. One thing you will notice is that the Dƒ resolves fine detail better than the D700 due to the slight increase in resolution so it looks a little sharper and the Dƒ also has a much more substantial increase in dynamic range showing more detail in highlight areas where the D700 has little. The Dƒ also has a more accurate White Balance, both were set to Auto.

Alright, so here we go. Take a look at ISO 1600. Pretty much dead even here.

Once we crank it up to ISO 3200 the D700 starts to break up a little but the Dƒ holds it together a little better. 

At ISO 6400 things take a big downturn for the D700. I'll have to say that ISO 3200 was usually my limit for the D700 unless I was in a pinch. But as you see at ISO 6400 the Dƒ is still holding more fine detail and the noise is less "chunky". ISO 6400 on the Dƒ is easily usable. 

Pushing it up to ISO 12800 isn't something I'd ever really thought about doing. But the Dƒ still holds it together very well even at this high ISO. The noise in the shadow areas is extremely well controlled in the Dƒ while the shadow areas are a mess in the D700. In the highlight areas the detail is still very fine in the Dƒ while the D700 is pretty messy. To be fair, ISO 128000 is not in the D700's native ISO so I wouldn't expect it to perform that well. I mean it's not bad compared to a lot of other cameras. 

I didn't bother running the Dƒ up to it's H settings. ISO 12800 is higher than anyone really needs in my opinion and the H settings aren't really optimal so I just stopped the comparison there. 

So what are my conclusions? I think the Nikon Dƒ is nearly two stops better than the D700 in ISO performance. The Dƒ controls shadow noise better and holds quite a lot of fine detail even at ISO 128000. Let's take a look at a couple of direct comparisons. The Dƒ at ISO 12800 and the D700 at ISO 3200.

The Dƒ noise is noticeably chunkier, but the fine detail is still there. Keep in mind that these two images are two stops apart. That means you can make images with the Dƒ in 4X less light than the D700 and still have relatively comparable output. That's quite impressive indeed. 

Just for fun let's throw the D5300 into the mix as well. First here's a look at the D5300 at ISO 12800. Pretty much unusable. Noise is out of control and detail is obliterated. 

Taking a look below you can see at ISO 1600 the D5300 clearly shows finer detail, but the results are pretty similar. The Dƒ is almost THREE stops better than the D5300! Of course this isn't a fair comparison. Th Dƒ costs $2000 more than D5300, it better perform better. The D5300 is a great camera for it's price point and can do HD video whereas the Dƒ can't, so there's that. 

The Dƒ isn't a direct replacement for the D700 for many reasons. Build, battery, lack of vertical grip, inferior AF system etc... But if you need the best IQ in low-light and don't want to spring for the D4 this is the camera. 

Just remember, this is pixel peeping. In the real world the differences aren't quite as noticeable. 

Later this week I'll get to a full review on the Dƒ. It's a quirky camera, but this little test has proven to me that the Dƒ is indeed the low-light king in Nikon small-body FX cameras. 

Displaying your art in cafés and restaurants

A lot of artists and photographers ask about the benefit of displaying their art in cafés and restaurants. As great as it would be, most of us will never get the chance to display in a high end gallery, so this is usually the best option.

I've displayed my photos in a coffee shop with great success. I chose a theme that was relevant to the area. I printed only live music photos specifically shot in local venues. I also chose images of bands that I knew were popular rather than my own favorite shots.

I printed the photos myself on my Epson 4800. I also framed and matted them. I used mid-priced polycarbonate frames, these look professional, don't chip or scratch like wood or metal and won't break the bank. Total cost was about $400. I easily made it back and even though the display was taken down 6 months ago people still ask about prints. I actually sold one on Friday.

Another key is to keep the prices affordable. The biggest mistake I see artists making is overpricing the art. Keep in mind the clientele of the venue. The place I displayed is mostly patronized by hipsters and college students. They're not the most affluent crowd.
You must also realize that this isn't necessarily a profit making venture, but a marketing strategy, keeping your prices down to a reasonable level will encourage more sales. I spend a lot of time in cafés and I most often hear people talking about the ridiculous prices on the art, and I usually agree.

Some of my unsold prints from the show were donated to special causes to be raffled off as well. I donated a photo of Motorhead to be raffled off to help a local band buy a new tour band when theirs was stolen. When they needed photos for their new album, guess who they called? That print that cost me about $25 to make landed me a $750 gig with more on the horizon.

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX AF-S lens

FINALLY!

10 years after Nikon introduced their first DSLR with a DX sensor, the D1, Nikon introduces a normal fast prime lens specifically for DX DSLRs. The 35mm focal length is equivalent to about 52mm on a full-frame camera. 50mm is a standard "normal" lens for the 135 format, which Nikon has termed FX for it's DSLR line. Since the inception of 35mm film the 50mm lens was the standard lens that was paired with most cameras since it approximates the same field of view as human eyesite.

When Nikon introduced it's DSLR line in 1999 they used a smaller APS-C sized sensor that was substantially smaller than a frame of 35mm film. This introduced what is known as a crop factor. Since the frame was smaller the field of view that sensor captured was reduced, resulting in the lens acting like a lens of a longer focal length.

For all these years Nikon has continued to manufacture DX cameras yet they have ignored the fact that there was really no option for someone who wanted a fast, "normal", inexpensive prime lens. The closest options were the 28mm f/2.8 (42mm equiv.) or the 35mm f/2. Both of these lenses worked OK, but weren't optimized for digital sensors.

The new 35mm f/1.8 was completely designed for DX cameras and bears no resemblance to the dinosaur 35mm f/2. The DX 35mm is smaller, more compact, and has newer and sharper lens elements that have a completely new design. The new lens also has the AF-S "Silent Wave" motor, which allows for super fast, super quiet focusing. This is also great news for D40/x and D60 users. Finally there's a cheap fast prime lens that can autofocus with these cameras.

No longer are DX camera users stuck with the 50mm f/1.8 as a good affordable prime lens. The 50mm is one of Nikon's most amazing lenses, but on a DX camera it's a short telephoto which makes it great for portraits but a little too long for most typical shooting scenarios.

The 35mm f/1.8G is the perfect light-weight, affordable, fast prime lens for all Nikon DX users from the D40 all the way up to the D300.

Nikon also ensures us that this is just the first of a new crop of lenses. I look for Nikon to unveil a few more gems during PMA this year.

Thanks Nikon, better late than never!