roger_s

May 15, 2014

If you like wide angle photography, it has to be the 10-18 Sony. It's a remarkably light weight lens compared to the weight of similar lenses for example in the Nikon range. When I saw how little the 10-18 weighs, I was shocked. Also, according to DXO lens data, it has better performance that the kit range of Sony lenses.

May 28, 2013

My friend has read the above posts with interest.

The second edition of the cookbook will use a combination of existing photos (from the 1st edition) plus new photos added in the 2nd edition. Therefore, given some comments above - that changing camera bodies might result in ever so minor changes in color "personality" of the photos, she decided to stick with her present D200 in order to maintain consistency with the look and feel of the photographs of the 1st edition.

The food shots are all static. The food is cooked in the kitchen, and then photographed on a light table.

Furthermore, since it would be important to maintain the same look and feel - given that photos from the 1st edition will appear in the same 2nd edition as new added photos - I wonder whether changing the lighting from floodlights to flash might radically change the look and feel of the photos. The intention is to achieve the same aura about the photos as the 1st edition. Hence, I think, in this circumstance, it might be best to stick with the equipment and lighting that worked for the 1st edition.

She intends to upgrade her equipment in the future, but, for the time being, to achieve consistency with the photos of the 1st edition, she has decided to stick with the present equipment for this particular job.

Really appreciate everyone's input.

May 21, 2013

So the consensus would be to use flash, to enable using the D200 at ISO 100 - would be just as good as upgrading to a D7100 or D600 ... for this particular circumstance.

May 21, 2013

Brian, I think she used floodlights. For a beginner food photographer, I guess that floodlights allowed her to see what the lighting would look like before taking the shots, and maybe easier for one not so experienced in food photography to obtain a good result.

May 21, 2013

Andy L., I don't get the impression there was anything shortcomings, rather a wondering whether it might be time to upgrade from 7-year-old technology which presumably would give better results. But her single concern is producing new photos for the next edition of the cookbook -- which is a different criteria for most people upgrading their DSLRs. Since the sole criteria was whether it will produce a better end result in the book pages, it occurred to me that many of the D7100 or D600's benefits might largely be nullified by the paper printing process, such that the gains might actually not be that noticeable to justify the extra costs in gear. In other words, upgrading from D200 to the latest might seem a no-brainer to most areas of photography, but when the output is a printed page ... maybe not so?

May 21, 2013

Matt, I've given lens information in the post above yours. What information do you need about lighting - photographic floodlights were used, I know that much.

In case you're wondering, the cookbook writer is also an avid photographer, so she decided to cook the food and take the photos herself.

May 21, 2013

These are the lenses she has that were used for the food photography: AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f2.8 (not an AF-S) AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8 (not an AF-S) DX AF-S Nikkor 18-70 mm f3.5-4.5 G-ED

The cookbook is a hardback and was not printed with cheap paper. The cookbook sold out its first print run, and went to a second printing.

May 21, 2013

p/s She was told, by a professional food photographer to shoot at 400 ISO on the D200, rather than minimum ISO. I wonder why? Any comments on that too?

May 21, 2013

This is a "should I upgrade" question - with a different slant. The first edition of a cookbook was published using photos taken with a D200 - photos always taken using tripod and studio lighting, at 400 ISO (a pro photographer advised to shoot the food photos at 400 rather than minimum ISO). Hence, when considering whether to upgrade to either a D7100 or D600/800, in this instance the vast improvement in high ISO performance is not relevant, since photos are taken at a lower ISO. Also, the photos are published as a cookbook, so the dynamic range of the photos is compressed by virtue of the limited dynamic range of paper used for cookbook publishing. Hence, one has to consider whether the extra dynamic range of the latest DSLRs is going to be visible in photos on printed book paper. I'm asking this question on behalf of a friend - and I don't believe that the lenses she used are the top range pro-level Nikon lenses which have the highest resolving power, often recommended for these high megapixel new model DSLRs at 24,36MP. (If I find out, in fact, she does have the high level pro lenses, I'll update this post later). It is appreciated that if she moves from DX to Full Frame, it will require purchasing new Full Frame lenses. So the question is: would upgrading from the D200 to the newest DX body (D7100), or transitioning to Full Fame (D600 or D800), make a substantial difference to the food photographs that appear on the printed page of a cookbook (assuming normal level of print quality as seen in good quality cookbooks, rather than going for absolute top level technology like Ansel Adams portfolio books). I compared the photos from the 1st edition of her cookbook, compared to photos appearing in a recent Jamie Oliver cookbook, and I couldn't see much difference in the tonal range of the two cookbooks. So I suspect that she won't be gaining much from upgrading from the D200. But I'd be particularly interested to hear everyone's comments, and particularly from photographers who have experience in food and product photography that is intended for the printed page.

May 6, 2011

There are many Canon photographers who need matte screens on their computers for photographic work. For Mac users, I want to draw their attention to a petition that so far has over 1,400 petitions asking Apple to bring back matte screens to the iMac. For 4 years, Apple refuses to offer matte screens on their iMacs and Desktop monitors. Only glossy. The petition was featured in this news article: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/367165/lack-of-matte-screens-driving-imac-fans-to-windows-pcs The link to the petition is: http://macmatte.wordpress.com and search for the word "photography" and "photographer", and you'll see many photographers are affected by this, and Apple refuses to listen. I don't intend this post to become a raging debate on the pluses and minuses of matte screens because there are fans of both types of screens. It is just that Apple is only catering for glossy-fans, but refusing to offer the iMac desktop computer with a matte option.

May 6, 2011

There are many Nikon photographers who need matte screens on their computers for photographic work. For Mac users, I want to draw their attention to a petition that so far has over 1,400 petitions asking Apple to bring back matte screens to the iMac. For 4 years, Apple refuses to offer matte screens on their iMacs and Desktop monitors. Only glossy. The petition was featured in this news article: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/367165/lack-of-matte-screens-driving-imac-fans-to-windows-pcs The link to the petition is: http://macmatte.wordpress.com and search for the word "photography" and "photographer", and you'll see many photographers are affected by this, and Apple refuses to listen. I don't intend this post to become a raging debate on the pluses and minuses of matte screens because there are fans of both types of screens. It is just that Apple is only catering for glossy-fans, but refusing to offer the iMac desktop computer with a matte option.

May 6, 2011

There are many photographers who need matte screens on their computers for photographic work. For Mac users, I want to draw their attention to a petition that so far has over 1,400 petitions asking Apple to bring back matte screens to the iMac. For 4 years, Apple refuses to offer matte screens on their iMacs and Desktop monitors. Only glossy. The petition was featured in this news article: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/367165/lack-of-matte-screens-driving-imac-fans-to-windows-pcs The link to the petition is: http://macmatte.wordpress.com and search for the word "photography" and "photographer", and you'll see many photographers are affected by this, and Apple refuses to listen. I don't intend this post to become a raging debate on the pluses and minuses of matte screens because there are fans of both types of screens. It is just that Apple is only catering for glossy-fans, but refusing to offer the iMac desktop computer with a matte option.

February 25, 2011

It's me, the OP. I have posted some photos on the Nikon forum starting a new thread http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YHt5 I compare the look of JPEGs from the Leica D-Lux 5 compared to my Nikon D300. If you'd like to comment on the comparison of photos, perhaps comment on the other thread.

February 25, 2011

Here is the Leica image without any post-processing straight out of the camera.<div>

</div>

February 25, 2011

Here is the slightly post-processed Leica D-Lux 5 image. Remember this is from a pocket camera with far smaller sensor.<div>

</div>

February 25, 2011

A few days ago, I posted on the digital camera forum here about why I felt justified spending more to get a Leica D-Lux 5, http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00YEaC and, for the most part, I was slammed for having more money than common sense for getting a camera which is ostensibly a Leica-rebranded Panasonic Lumix LX5. So I had a simple shootout between my Nikon D300, 16-85 DX and the Leica D-Lux 5. Nothing too complex. Here's how I tried to create a level playing field: - Nikon at widest zoom setting of 16 mm, equivalent to 24mm FX versus Leica at widest zoom setting also equivalent to 24mm FX. - both lenses set at one stop below widest, hence Nikon at f5, versus Leica at f2.8 - both set at Aperture Priority mode - both set for Deep Shade color balance - both focused on the left-hand side of the large green bush I attach 3 photos, and you should be able to tell which by my description. 1) Nikon JPEG, no post processing except slight sharpening. I consider a sharpened Nikon JPEG to be a level playing field compared to an unsharpened Leica JPEG because Nikon JPEGs are reputed to be slightly soft, as I've heard. 2) Leica D-Lux 5, darkening to match Nikon image, and extra saturation to try to match Nikon's green in the grass lawn. 3) Leica D-Lux 5, no post processing The Nikon D300's color seemed almost artificial and heavy. Look at the part underneath the large tree - it is virtually dumped into black. Look at the other dark areas - underneath the left tree, and underneath the central bush. Whereas in the Leica image you can make out shadow detail in those same areas. For me, the Leica with saturation post-processing captures the ambient light that I saw when standing in the garden, whereas the Nikon seems ... almost garish. In the dark shade areas in the Leica photo, you can see plenty of shadow detail. Sure, with some post processing of RAW Nikon files, I'm sure you could draw out the shadow detail - but this quick test compares the Nikon vs Leica JPEGs using the barest amount of post-processing. I've had a series of Nikon DSLRs from the D70, D80 and D300 - am have been accustomed to seeing that sort of color, but now that I've seen the Leica colors, I don't think I can go back to using the D300.<div>

</div>

February 16, 2011

I just logged in to check responses, and I must say I was totally surprised by the, may I say, the bite in some of the responses. For instance, when people discuss why they chose particular Nikon equipment, one never gets responses like Eric's "I dont care" statement. There must be some raw nerve that is being touched. Anyway, it made my day - a little light entertainment. Leslie, the "everyone" does not encompass the many people who like to think that Leica might have succeeded in translating the combination of contrast and color rendition into the digital arena. Another example of a sweeping statement rather than an analysis of the range of viewpoints on what is no doubt a subjective issue. If you review all my posts on photo.net, I don't recall having made a post/comment where I felt the need to respond in kind. It's just that the terseness of some of the comments came as a shock to me. Those people have to look in a mirror and ask themselves whether they'd make the same comment in reply to people explaining why they bought a Nikon or Canon, which are fairly expensive gear as well. Eric?

February 16, 2011

I paid more for the little red dot on the Leica D-Lux 5, rather than getting the cheaper and allegedly identical Panasonic Lumix LX5. Here's why. Before buying, I must have read almost all the online reviews and comparisons. Virtually all were speculation, but amongst them there were a consistent thread of Leica users who swore that the Leica D-Lux 5, inspite of appearing to be a Lumix LX5 clone, actually had something different internally that was producing the "Leica look" in the JPEGs. I believe there is such a thing as the "Leica look". Way back in the chemical darkroom days, I started off shooting exclusively with Nikon SLRs. I later on acquired an old Leica M2 but with a brand new 35mm Summicron. The first batch of photos that I made from that Leica made me jump. The difference was that distinct. There is something intangible that you can discern from the photos. That difference comes solely from the fact it was taken with a Leica lens, versus, in that case, my Nikon lenses (28/35/50/105/200). Hence, the assertions by Leica users - who bought the D-Lux 5 - was that this same "Leica look" is present in the JPEGs produced by the D-Lux 5, which, by inference, were not in the Lumix LX5 JPEGs. People suspected Leica had twiddled with the firmware to produce JPEGs that are more in line with Leica's approach to imaging. No one could confirm this technically, but the anecdotes of Leica users was that they could see something different in the D-Lux 5 JPEGs that was the "Leica look". Search Google for -- Leica D-Lux "leica look" The comparison below convinced me that there was indeed a difference in the JPEG engines of the Leica D-Lux 5 vs the Lumix LX5. http://leicarumors.com/2011/01/27/leica-d-lux-5-vs-panasonic-lx-5-image-comparison.aspx/ In the above, I think it goes further than just smoother JPEGs at higher ISO. Rather, it has to do with color rendition - which I don't think is as well highlighted in the samples in the above link. So, ultimately, it was a step of faith in the numerous comments on the internet, from Leica users who were all convinced that the firmware of the D-Lux 5 had indeed been tweaked to produce the fabled Leica look. I also posted some comments, under the name RS on this site:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2010/02/06/Leica-D-Lux-4/comments FINANCIAL REASONS: I am traveling soon, which means I can claim the GST rebate off. That's a 10% discount over here. Plus, the Leica has a 2 year warranty, while the Lumix has a 1 year warranty. When I purchase it with my superduper credit card, I get a further free warranty extension. To put this in context, my Apple iPod touch recently developed a wiggly connection where the earphone jack is inserted. And that caused Apple's repairman to write it off. Cost to replace: 63% of the original purchase price. I was out of the 1 year Apple warranty, but still within the extended warranty of the credit card insurance. Hence, warranties are important.

Plus, I do not already have any versions of Adobe Lightroom, so the free Lightroom that comes with the Leica D-Lux 5 is effectively like having $200+ taken off the price (depending how much Lightroom 3 costs in your area of town). Plus, I am really into design aesthetics, and am attracted to the minimalistic design of the Leica D-Lux 5. The lack of a handgrip in the D-Lux 5 does not matter since, if you buy a leather case on eBay for the LX5, there is a bump to accommodate the handgrip which effectively acts as a handgrip on the Leica. (If you google the name Richard Franiec, you can find a low-cost handgrip that can be adhered to the body). Before I got the D-Lux 5, I was undecided whether to use it as my sole camera on my forthcoming trip, or also bring along my heavyweight Nikon D300 and 16-85 and 12-24 zooms, but after tinkering around with the D-Lux 5, there's no doubt now that it'll be my sole traveling camera on this trip. I am just enthralled by its usability and speed. For years, I have avoided using point and shoot cameras because I need fast focus for photojournalism-style photos, and also fast shutter reaction for taking portraits to capture the facial expression just at the right moment. In the past, point and shoots simply did not have the fast focus and shutter reaction time I needed. Now, for the first time, I've found a pocket camera that can satisfy these two main criteria in the styles of photography that are my main focus. And, the image quality is great - with, if you are a believer in this - a semblance of the fabled Leica look. This review highlights the fast focus speed making it suitable for street photography: http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/Street-Photo-Stress-Test-Leica-X1-Leica-D-Lux-5 In summary, if I factor in the 10% GST travel rebate, the longer warranty, and the free Adobe Lightroom 3, and the numerous anecdotes that the Leica's firmware is better - it all adds up to mean that the cost of the red dot, for me, wasn't that much more costly than the Lumix LX5. Moreover, this blog post by Lara Rossignol demonstrated for me that superb photos were possible with a compact camera, and that I did not have to take my Nikon D300 along on my trip to get great photos. We all know it is the photographer and not the camera, but it's hard to wean yourself off a DSLR. http://blog.leica-camera.com/guest-blog-post/going-pro-lara-rossignol-tests-the-d-lux-5/ And the clincher - I get more frequent flyer points on the credit card purchase by buying the Leica than the Lumix :) And that's how I justified getting the red dot.

February 16, 2011

Eric, I'll answer your comment in a new post.

February 16, 2011

The manual refers to item 26 - a lens ring front, but a search of the PDF indicates no further explanation. A retailer subsequently explained that this ring can be twisted anticlockwise to be removed, which reveals the filter thread. This was not self-evident to me since I am loathe to twist portions of a lens unless I am 100% certain that it is meant to be twisted. Problem solved.

February 16, 2011

Rather than risk valid smarty-pants comments, I reviewed the manual first, and even did a digital search for relevant terms ... before I posted my question.

February 16, 2011

p/s the Hong Kong accessory supplier said that the D-Lux 5 is basically the same as LX5. i.e. there is a filter mount ring around the lens and you have to remove the ring in order to mounter lens an adapter. However, on my D-Lux 5 I cannot see any removable ring?

February 16, 2011

This isn't a question, rather some observations that other people - intending to buy either the Leica D-Lux 5 or Panasonic Lumix LX5 - might find useful. Before buying the Leica D-Lux 5, I must have read most online reviews I could find, and also lots of comments on discussion threads. When the frequent comment is made that the D-Lux 5 is identical to the LX5, one point that is not emphasised is that the LX5 is a filter thread around its lens barrel that facilities adding accessories such as a cylinder that accepts 52mm filters, which is also used for attaching the Panasonic wide-angle adapter. The Leica D-Lux 5's lens barrel does not have a filter thread and, as such, cannot accept filter attachments or the wide-angle attachment. Minor point, perhaps, but someone out there who's considering these cameras might want to know that. Also, I bought a Hong-Kong made leather case designed for the LX5, and the strap width is too wide for the lugs of the Leica D-Lux 5. Now, I am unsure if that's because the respective lug holes are different, or whether it's because the Hong Kong case manufacturer has lousy design.

February 14, 2011

Thanks for all your comments. I proceeded to get Scott Kelby's LR3 book for Kindle, and it seems fine for my purposes when reading it on the Kindle Reader for Mac - which means the images are in color. I am traveling extensively, and needed a LR3 reference book I could take with me on the road. This fits the bill.

February 14, 2011

I'm considering getting Scott Kelby's Lightroom 3 book in Kindle format. Given the number of illustrations in the book, I wonder how such books come across in Kindle format?

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by roger_s