I’ve given a couple talks about fashion photography and shown my photos and people often ask “how many lights are you using? what equipment are you using?”  If you look at most of my photos, I actually own only 2 lights.  They are two simple Alienbees with various modifiers which cost under $1000 for everything.

That’s how i produce all my photos, they use a maximum of two lights, (note 2 lights, but not necessarily 2 light sources, ie sun/reflector etc).  For on location shots, I use my Nikon Speedlights (SB-600, SB-800 and SB-900), generally just one or two of them maximum.  The more lights I have the more light sources I have to consider including the various shadows, highlights, colour from each of the light sources.  There is just so much more to worry about, and there is a lot that can go wrong.  Hence I follow the engineering rule, K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple, Stupid!.

Lighting is one thing, and I actually plan to host a series of creative lighting workshops in the coming months partnering up with DCPhotocoop to show off what you can do with one light and the various possibilities.  Essentially understanding what you can do with one light, two lights, and various modifiers and just what’s possible.

Moving on, lighting is one thing, people often ask me what camera do you use and what lenses etc.   Camera equipment is perhaps the most pointless bit, it’s whatever you are comfortable with.   The Nikon-Canon debate is again fruitless, either camera will provide fantastic results.   The other side of the story is that I’ve seen photographers produce great pictures from a D40, which is a $300 camera.  Similarly, I’ve seen photographers produce crappy photos with a D3x which is an $8000 camera.  It goes to show that it’s more about the photographer and not the equipment.

Personally I shoot with a D2x, and a series of primes and a couple of zooms.  Why do I shoot with a D2x?  mainly because I like the vertical grip.  95% of my photos are taken in the portrait orientation, having the built in vertical grip makes it really comfortable and really steady to shoot.  Furthermore, I like the build quality; I don’t take care of my equipment, everything is abused and D2x can handle the abuse.   Also it has native 100 ISO which is very useful in studio.   At the same time, the D2x high ISO quality is crap, my D50 produces better results.  All in all it’s a good camera to use and what I’m happy with.

With regards to lenses, people go out and buy $1500 lenses.  And yes you do need good lenses, but you an get away with bad decent lenses.   The two stable horses for my studio shooting is my Nikon 50mm 1.8D ($100) which is wide and I use for my full length shots (keep in mind D2x is 1.5x cropped sensor)  and Nikon 85mm 1.8D ($400) for just about everything else, 3/4, headshots and closeups.   now if I want to do a bit closer up I use my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 macro.  This lens is a slow focusing lens, but the copy I have is ridiculously sharp.  My comfort zone is shooting at f/6.3- f/8 in studio, this is also the range you can get the most out of your lenses.   Obviously on location is different and you have to take into account all the other factors.  I have a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 as well which I use a lot less these days.

Again all in all, learn what you can do with your current equipment and figure out what you need before you drop a couple grand buying some shinny new piece of metal.

I’ve had the Tokina for about a week now, but I haven’t had a chance to really go out and shoot with it due to crappy weather and busy schedule.  But while I’m stuck home I put together a quick and dirty centre image sharpness comparison.   For first impressions, click  here.

f/22 1/50 @11mm

Wide open the Tokina performed quite well, at certain focal length, the tokina performed better than my Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8.  Once stopped down the Tokina is pretty sharp, but it seems I did have a few particular cases of blurriness (namely at 13mm f/2.8, 16mm f/3.5 and 14 f/5.6).  I will re-take these to make sure it wasn’t an error on my part.

All the shots were taken on a tripod in manual with sb800 as the main light.  Below are the links to the centre crop comparison images.

Tokina f/2.8 Comparison
Tokina f/3.5 Comparison
Tokina f/5.6 Comparison
Tokina f/8 Comparison

More tests to come in the next couple weeks. Going up to NYC soon, so more real life tests.

Sample shots with Tokina:

New York

Air & Space Museum

Obama

Inauguration

Now if they will just make an SLR version of this setup…pretty please!!!

I bought the Nikon Nikkor AFS  18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G for my D50.  This was my first nikon lens and for nearly 2 years it served as my main lens travelling to 3 differnt continents covering every type of shoots.  It’s a sharp, fast and silent lens.  Now it’s in a new home working with a D40, where it will find much more use.

UPDATE: Sample Photos

Local camera shop called today to let me know that my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 has arrived. They didn’t have to say twice before I was at the store and credit card in hand.

The Tokina is (as far as I know) the only Ultra Wide Angle with constant f.2.8 across the range. Online reviews have all been raving about this DX lens…so it’s been ridiculously hard to find, especially in Nikon mount.

I will go through a more thorough review of it in a week or so (going up to NYC soon). For quick and dirty first impressions, click more.

First impressions, it’s a pretty well built lens, reminds me of old metal nikkor lenses. It has a clutch MF/AF system similar to my Tamron, which I don’t mind and actually prefer over the M/A system on my 17-55. For AF it uses the screw-drive (in body motor), which is pretty fast on my D2x, and not half bad on the D50.  It has a simple click petal hood, looks nice, will test the actual capability in the sun soon.

Also this lens doesn’t come with bag or anything, just the lens.  Ps, it’s 77mm filter-size.

Here are a size comparison shot. More to come soon.
Left to Right: 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8, Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

[This is a multiple part review of my D2x.  You can find the following sections here: Intro]

Nikon D2x -ISO

The D2x is a has a quite limited base iso range from 100-800 compared to other cameras on the market with native iso range at least one stop beyond what the D2x can offer.  (D300: 200-3200)  However, The D2x does have a couple tricks up its sleeve.

High ISO

Might as well put it straight, Nikon D2x is not the camera for high iso.  The high iso RAWs have quite a bit of noise.  The noise start to creep in at 400, 320 if you are picky.  In the shadows, the noise seem to me to be more digital than grain.  Compared to the RAW images from my 6 megapixel D50, I prefer the noise rendition on the small amateur body.  (I shoot raw without noise reduction in camera.)

Here is a sample of the D2x at iso 1250:

Having said all that, before you run off to get your D300/700/90, two things save the D2x on the high iso front. First of all, unless you are going to do massive wall prints, noise is not really an issue on this camera (or with any other DSLR in my opinion). The images are perfectly usable for 6×9 prints or A4 prints. Secondly, once converted to monochrome, the images are quite pleasant to the eye. Here is a sample from this past shoot. Available light at iso 1250, 85mm at f1.8 (hence the blurriness).

Low ISO

Here is where the D2x shines.  Unlike the D300 which has a native iso of 200.  The D2x can drop it down to 100.  I have heard many praises for the D2x at iso 320 and lower, but it was only when I actually used it that I felt the true cleanness of the images.  When you have the strobes, simply crank them up and turn down the iso on the D2x and it looks magical.  Here is a crop at iso 100.

ISO-Conclusion

So I think it’s pretty straight forward, if you need the high iso for colour event/wedding images for big print, then by all means, go for the D300 or D700/3 for that matter.  But if high iso is not that high of a priority (you live mostly around low iso range) and you can live with a little noise in your life here and there.  Then D2x is quite perfect.

Nikon D2x -Tonal Range

Well this is going to be quite a brief section as I do not think I am qualified enough to speak on this subject.  Nevertheless, just wanted to voice my opinion.  I love the way the D2x renders skin tones.  Such soft subtle light fall off and gentleness.   It’s something I was never able to achieve previously.

Here is a quick cropped image to illustrate what I mean, no processing, straight from the camera raw, converted in LR, using Adobe RGB.

Overall in terms of image quality, for my uses, I’m thoroughly impressed and satisfied.  Although I can’t deny that I want a second body with higher/better iso performance.

Nikon D2x

This should be one part of a multiple part assessment of my ‘new’ camera body, the Nikon D2x.  I have owned the D2x (with firmware update) for a little over a month now and have using it for 4 different photoshoots, hence I’m getting the hang of the camera now.  This is perhaps one of the most belated reviews of a camera, nearly 4 years old, but nevertheless.   I believe the D2x is a definite viable choice for people thinking about upgrading to a D300.

Here are the specification rundowns

D2x

-12.4 Mega Pixels

-5fps at 12.4 Mega Pixels

-8fps at 7 Mega Pixels

-11 area MultiCam-2000 Focus

-9 crosshair AF points

-Iso 100-800, expandable to 3200

-2.5 inch screen, 235k pixels(dots)

D300

-12.3 Mega Pixels

-5fps regular

-8fps with battery pack

-51 area Multicam-3500 focus

-15 crosshair AF points

-Iso 200-3200, expandable to 100 and 6400

-3.0 inch screen, 922k

Price point

D2x (used) ~$1000

D300 (new) ~$1500

D300 (new) with grip/batt ~$1800

D300 (refurbished) with grip/batt ~$1600

Based on the specifications alone, it seems that the D2x is whopped by the newer and in someways better little brother.  Over the next few reviews I’ll try to explain and hopefully justify my decision.  And also at the same time explain what’s good/bad about using a 4 yr old camera.

REVIEW Continued: Image Quality