Upcoming trip

I'm going to be in Iceland soon, and hopefully once I return I can provide some interesting pictures and/or technique observations. The past months have been increasingly busy, and they don't show any signs of slowing down.

More Megapixels isn't always Better

Just like processor speeds were the catch-all number used to sell computers in the late 90s and early 2000s, megapixels are the hot number in many camera advertisements. This seems to have cooled down some recently with the gradual deceleration of sensor sizes; the lack of new gigantic sensors means that other distinguishing features need to be used to differentiate competition.

There are several practical consequences to more megapixels, and many of them are bad, at least if you're not making larger prints. (Six megapixels will get you very clean 8x10 prints.)

For example, pixel density can be a barrier to relative sharpness. The resolution of a lens is finite, even though it's continuous, and when you exceed the limit of resolution on the glass, you'll find that the details get a little more muddy. (So for example, my 50mm f/1.8 AF-D still shines on the d7000, but the 28mm f/3.5 AI-S shows its age.)

Another issue with increased pixel density is that the camera is more sensitive to your body movement. While this is usually more obvious with longer focal lengths, I've noticed in my recent 10MP bump-up that it's harder to get equivalent sharpness with the same shutter speed. This makes sense, since more samples means a magnified view relative to a smaller pixel density. In essence it's like putting a magnifying glass on the image: you're bound to see things in higher magnification than you would see otherwise.

This sort of issue is made worse at longer focal lengths. I was pleasantly surprised by the sharpness of the AF-S f/4-5.6 55-200mm lens when I got it, and the 18-200 was pretty much the same. But the 70-300 at equivalent focal lengths is often blurry at the same shutter speeds.

This is one of the more immediate things I noticed when I started using the d7000: it takes a steadier hand than I'm used to, and I'm sure part of it has to do with those extra megapixels crowding that sensor. On the plus side, though, it definitely does allow for more spectacular shots when you need the center of frame just so.

Another View of Polaris

I meant to post this quite some time ago, but as it happens, my schedule and mind aren't always conducive:

This was my second effort at playing with the intervalometer. This time I didn't shoot RAW because of how long it took to do the batch conversion (nearly 8 hours on my netbook; and yes, I know I shouldn't use a netbook for that purpose).

This time it was the 50mm f/1.8 at f/3.5, ISO 1250, 15-second exposures. White balance was set at 3030K in camera to provide bluer affect and mitigate some of the warming tones from light pollution. One picture taken every 30s from midnight to 5 AM.

Again, I kept Polaris in view, but this time shifted down slightly. The more limited field of view is less satisfying than the wider angle, although the detail is sharper. I'll probably try another using the 28mm f/3.5 at 3.5 to see if it is any good.

I haven't had much time since then to work with the intervalometer, but I'm curious to see how a smaller field of view might work with a longer lens like the 70–300 VRII.

Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR

As I'm planning on traveling a fair amount this year, I leapt on the chance to get this lens at almost half off MSRP when I found a refurbished one available online.

If you've shot with me for any length of time, you know that I prefer prime lenses to zooms, mostly because it helps me think more about composition. Primes also have the advantage of being lighter, faster, and generally smaller than their zooming cousins.

That said, there are times when your feet won't get you there, and zooms are undeniably handy for their convenience. I had the DX 18-200mm VR super-zoom and rarely used it, and I gave my DX 55-200mm (part of a trade+cash sale of the 18-200) to my sister with the d40. I opted to get this FX monster as the replacement.

Testing the D7000's Intervalometer

Pardon the noise pollution:

Just a test of the d7000's intervalometer. Shot with a 28mm f3.5 AI-S at f5.6, ISO 1000. 30-second exposures at one-minute intervals beginning at midnight and ending around 5:30am.

Raw conversion was done using ucraw. Manual WB setting in camera was 3030K for a blue affect but automatically adjusted by UCRaw to somewhere north of 4000K. Exposure compensation was adjusted +1.5 stops during the batch process.

The light pollution is obviously pretty bad. I kept this because I accidentally pointed at Polaris. I'll try this again, but most likely with my 50mm f/1.8 and shoot a bit more wide-open (say f/2.8) with more frequent intervals and shorter exposure times.

Full video here (I notice the video is basically black on the blog).