Photographic Equipment

A Tale of two creeks Richland and Falling Water–02_21_19 Featured Arkansas Photography

Posted on February 22, 2019 //

Fall scene featuring Richland and Falling Water Creek at their confluence.

A tale of two Creeks, Falling Water and Richland Creeks, Newton County Arkansas taken November 2018.

Taken with a Nikon D850 and 24-70 lens. Image capture in 3 horizontal images @ 24mm. I used both a CL-PL and ND filter to slow the exposure for the water.

If I had to pick a favorite spot in Arkansas, it would have to be Richland Creek. Most defiant a love/hate relationship as Richland alone has cost me more in camera gear than any other location I like to photograph. Just this fall I lost both a Nikon D850 and 24-70 lens upstream from where this shot was taken. Totally my fault and lucky for me, the creek was much lower so I was able to recover the gear and Nikon USA was able to repair it at a reasonable cost. But that’s another story.

Richland Creek is one of the fascinating creeks in Arkansas. At medium to high water levels it’s a great kayaking stream. The creek is lined with hardwoods most are 2nd generation growth as the creek was logged back in both the great depression and again in the 60’s-70’s. Most of the old growth trees are long gone but if you hike far enough upstream where the mules and loggers never reached you can still find some huge white oaks.

The creek also winds through some of the most remote parts of Arkansas, that are still remaining. Most of the watershed is now a wilderness area. There is a primitive hiking trail that works it’s way up the left side of the creek (left side facing upstream). This trail will lead all the way to Twin Falls and Richland Falls, well worth the trip.

For most the season, Richland hold water, but in the fall it’s very rare to find a good flow like the one shown in this image. Instead the creek is usually barely covering the rocks. The fall colors are getting tricky to catch also. In the past the peak display tended to be around the middle of October now the peak seems to be more in the first week of November. But the display is now hard to catch in full. Notice in this shot most of the larger trees on the left have dropped their leaves, but the willows and smaller hardwoods lining the creek are still in full color. However upstream many of the larger trees are still hold leaves. So you just have to go and see what you have.

To take this shot, I had to wade out into the creek to mid thigh deep. I found a rock that allowed me to place my tripod and camera safely above the creek. Still after the disaster I had just 1 week prior, I was a bit shaky on working in the creek. Still it was just too much not to get out and risk the shot. There was little to no wind and just as I arrived the deeply overcast sky started to breakup and gave me some nice mixed light.

Due to the high water levels, I was able to catch Falling Water Creek on the left of the shot. Falling Water Creek runs into Richland at the Richland Campground. Falling water breaks into several channels near the it’s mouth with Richland and this one is the smallest. It hardly ever flows unless Richland is running at a high level. So I was grateful to catch both creeks in the same shot with some of the most amazing fall color I have seen on the creek.

Written by Paul Caldwell for www.photosofarkansas.com. Please contact the author before using any part of this in a separate publication.

Filed Under: Featured Photography, Nikon Cameras, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: Arkansas panoramas, Arkansas photography, autumn, Capture Arkansas, Capturing Arkansas in photographs, Landscapes, Nikon Photography, panoramas, photography of Arkansas, Photos of Arkansas, Richland Creek, Richland in Fall

No Drones allowed in Arkansas State Parks, without a permit–Written 06/14/18

Posted on June 16, 2018 //

Permit form for Drone Flight, Arkansas State Parks

If you are planning to fly a drone in an Arkansas State Park, you will need to contact the office of the Director of Arkansas State Parks, in Little Rock. As the the beginning of 2018, it is now necessary to have a permit to fly in any of the Arkansas State Parks. The permit can be obtained by contacting the Directors office in Little Rock, and they will email you a copy to fill out.

I was flying on Petit Jean, from Stout’s Point back in late March, a spot I had made many flights from previously. I like this spot as you can get up with no clearance issues and quickly get out away from the mountain. There is a small airport on top of Petit Jean, and you will get the standard warning about such fields. My flights were always out away from the mountain and around to the face of Stouts point.

On this particular afternoon, I had just taken off and a park ranger stopped and asked me if I was flying a drone. I replied yes, and he told me that “No Drones are allowed in Arkansas State Parks, without a permit”. I was a bit taken a back by this since I regularly checked the Arkansas State Parks website for such rules, and there never has been anything posted. I told the ranger this, and he just shrugged his shoulders, and stated, he did not have any control over what and when something is added to the main website. But he was quite clear about no flying in the Petit Jean State Park.

The next day I contacted the Office of the Director of Arkansas State Parks, and was told that what the ranger had stated was correct even though it’s not posted anywhere. Strange but true. Not sure how long it would take to edit the website to fix this, but probably not too long. I was sent the above form and told that it had to be filled out and returned for approval. I also called Mt Nebo, Mt Magazine and Pinnacle Mountain State Parks, and was told the same thing, no flying.

A few thoughts:

The permit is very straight forward, but very restrictive. Note also you need to have proof of liability insurance. They are not looking for something like “Verify”, but a actual policy, and they want to see the policy number. Notice also, they have asked to have the dates, and times of the flights listed. This is Arkansas, where the weather can change in minutes so to list the actual time of flight is very limiting, as odds are at that time frame or day, you will have weather issues, or wind or both. No point in traveling a couple of hours with a permit only to arrive and have a windy or rainy afternoon. It would be much better if the permit allowed for a full day of flights, and also allowed for a range of dates, like 5 days. An example would be:

I would like to fly during the time of May 5th through the 10th. My flights will be limited to launching from 8:00 am to no later than 10:00 am and I will be making 3 total flights. I will also only be flying from spots where I can stay away from congestion so my drone will not disturb anyone else.

Phantom 4 drone up in the Arkansas sky against the moon

This would allow a lot more flexibility.

It’s most unfortunate that Arkansas has chosen this no fly policy. There are plenty of spots where a flight can be conducted where no one else is at any risk. Stout’s point is a great example as you can launch from the far side away from the parking area, and fly out and away from the mountain. You can also stay at a altitude as to not endanger any aircraft planning to land on Petit Jean’s airport.

Consider also Cossatot State Park. Very remote, and on a weekday, you are lucky to see anyone else in the area. Most drone flights are less than 30 minutes, so the odds of disturbing anyone else are slim to none.

Now if you go and fly over Cedar Falls on Petit Jean, sure you are going to be noticed and be a risk to others, especially if you happen to loose control of your drone. It’s already apparently happened a few times on Petit Jean, where a drone has crashed near folks viewing the falls.

Oh, and notice, the current Arkansas Drone Law (lets hope it stays this vague), only is concerning flying over installations that might be at risk, like power stations (Arkansas Nuclear One) or industry. Two acts:

Act 1019 – Surveillance of Critical Infrastructure

Unlawful to photograph, record, or conduct surveillance on anything defined as “critical infrastructure”, defined as: an electrical power generation or delivery system; A petroleum refinery; A chemical or rubber manufacturing facility; or A petroleum or chemical storage facility.

Act 293 – Voyeurism

Unlawful to use a drone for voyeurism.

Note, I don’t believe it is lawful to use a camera in general for voyeurism. Sad that this had to be put into an additional law.

Here is a formal link:

http://statedronelaw.com/state/Arkansas/

I believe you will get a pass the first time you are stopped, but there are fines in place for flying, and it’s possible to have your equipment confiscated.

In conclusion, I have been a resident of Arkansas since 1969, and love the outdoors. It saddens me that Arkansas has taken such a strict policy, with what appears to be a lack of understanding of actual drone flights. The fact that it’s required to list by date and hour the times you wish to fly, instead of giving you a larger block of dates and times is unfortunate and makes picking a good date very difficult. For example, thought out April, I can’t remember a day when there was not an issue with either wind or rain or both. I understand why the Director of Arkansas State Parks, is concerned. Drones, especially the DJI Phantom or Inspire are both loud and large and thus can create a situation where other people enjoying the state park would want to complain. Many people flying drones, consumer grade have no clue as to what to do when something goes wrong, and so it’s possible that a drone could come down in a area where a large number of people are standing. This would be a risk of injury and thus liability. But please note, that in all the parks, I previously mentioned it’s possible to fly a drone in remote parts of the park and or during times of low visitation and not cause any issues at all. It’s just that many folks will choose not to do this.

People in this state will continue to fly without permits which is also unfortunate, but it’s kind of the way things seem to be going now. But note, if you do fly in an Arkansas State Park, without a permit, you are flying without permission of the Director, and thus you will be looking over your shoulder the whole time you are in the air and that is not a good condition for flying, as you need to pay 100% attention to your aircraft.

Written and copy write protected for www.photosofarkansas.com by Paul Caldwell. Please contact the author for a reprint.

Filed Under: Arkansas Outdoors, Drones, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: Are Drones allowed in Arkansas State Parks, Arkansas State Parks, Arkansas State Parks and Drones, can you fly a drone in an Arkansas state park, DJI, DJI Drones in Arkansas, DJI Phantom 4, DJI Phantom 4 Vr 2.0, Drone flights in Arkansas, Drone photography, drones allowed in Arkansas State Parks, Drones Arkansas State Parks, Drones in Arkansas State Parks, Phantom 4 Pro, Phantom4, Rules for Drones in Arkansas State Parks

05/18/16 Upgrade to Phantom 4 Vr 2.0–Not everything went smoothly

Posted on May 18, 2018 //

After this purchase on 05/09/18 of a new Phantom 4 Pro Vr 2.0 I will never again use the DJI Store. What a joke when it comes to customer satisfaction. It’s clear to me that DJI is the 800lb gorrilla and they a lot to learn about customer care and or satisfaction.

My brand new defective Phantom 4 Pro Vr 2.0 Still waiting on authorization to return to DJI

I have been working with DJI products now for close to 1 year, starting with the Spark and quickly moving up to the Phantom Series. My main focus is stills, not video and the Phantom with 20MP is by far the best solution on the market. Up till now, most of my purchases have been from the DJI store. NET, the process is quick, fast, and no local sales tax. I most often always purchase the DJI Refresh also as it seems like a good idea after a possible crash. Realize there is no way to really talk to DJI, folks they are in China. They have a phone contact number for the US, but what a joke. These folks are right off bus, and anyone who has taken the time to read a DJI manual would have more knowledge than any of them. Getting hold of an engineer or real tech give up, you ain’t gonna get there.

This particular Phantom 4 Vr 2.0 acted up right from the start since I was never able to get the newer version of DJI Assistant to work with it. YES, there is a new version of DJI Assistant, Vr 2.0.0 and when you load it on your computer, it will be called Assistant 2 for Phantom. (now that is also misleading, since the previous version of Assistant 2 vr 1.2.3 is what you use to support the P4 Pro and back down to P2. Only the new P4 Vr 2.0 works with this version. I was able to connect, get the corresponding box to click on, but when you try to see firmware, you get the error “Unable to load firmware please retry”. You can try as many times as you want, it’s not going to load. Guess what, you also thus can’t get to the flight data on the P4 i.ie. the .DAT files.

I still was able to get the firmware updated via Djigo4, and I guess the batteries updated, but I have no way to knowing this as Djigo4 app doesn’t break it down, like the Assistant software does.

First flight: within 5 minutes I received a compass error, one I have never seen before telling me that the compass was no longer working. I had previously calibrated the compass. But since this flight was local and only a test, I was able to return. Re calibration of the compass was successful and I flew it again. This time after about 5 minutes I received a error on the 5.8 frequency stating that I had too much interference. (I thought the Vr 2 P4 was autoswitching?). Again I landed, and switched to 2.4. Now I had 2 more flights without errors. I noticed the controller was down to 2 lights, so I powered everything off and set it on the charger.

After both battery and charger were charger, I attempted another flight. This time on turning on the charger, all I got was the “controller error” status. (flashing red and constant beeping). Dead, done.

Sure, you may get this with the sticks not centered, (mine were). So I tried to reset it with the 3 button reset, no good. Calling DJI was a waste of time, net they did not know anything. So a google search came back with “attempt to refresh firmware of controller”. PER THE MANUAL of the P4 Vr 2.0, you are supposed to be able to do this by attaching the micro USB cable to controller, and then using Assistant 2 for Phantom to refresh. Well mine never would connect, i.e. the USB indicator never moved into the PC on the screen. I also tried to re-calibrate the controller via djigo4, but again it never would connect or make any head way.

This is all within the first 12 hours of turning it on. What would you do? My take was return it for a new unit as at $1,500.00 I don’t want to wait a month for parts or get a refurb controller.

I called DJI again, spent a good 30 minutes trying to get a real person, finally did. They told me “yes you need to return it and go to the www.support.us@dji.com website and request a return.

I did that, both with a very detailed description of the problems and what I tried to do to fix it. Within 2 hours I received a automated response giving me a case number.

This morning I received a email from China asking me in essence to retry everything I had already done, (center the sticks, re-calibrate or refresh firmware on controller). So out goes my response telling them that “I have done all of that”. As of five hours later, I am still waiting for a response. Very discouraging.

Moral of this story.

DJI makes great stuff, however their current customer support process is broken plain and simple. The Store model is great unless you get a bad product, then I guess it’s safe to assume it’s time to call your credit card company and open an issue, which I will do next week if don’t hear anything back. It’s much better to stay with Adorama or B&H Photo in the U.S or Best Buy as all 3 of them have a rock solid return process and I can assure you if the same issue had occurred with a P4 Vr 2.0 purchased from one of these vendors, I would already have a RMA and the drone would be headed back to them for a replacement. Of course on this transaction, I was forced to purchase from the DJI Store since DJI allowed the store to have stock first over other loyal vendors. So if you purchase from the store, beware, and hope your product works as trying to return it even after it’s totally clear the unit is defective is not an easy thing to do.

Notes, as all the rush is now to post a video on Youtube and develop a channel to get paid by advertisers, my approach will stay with written text and no video unless attached to a post. Too old fashion for you sorry, but I would rather read then watch. You will get the same info, and you can even print it or keep a record of it and not watch have to watch a video again.

Written for paulcaldwellphotography.com on 05/18/18.

Filed Under: Articles and Reviews, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: Customer service issues DJI, DJI, DJI Assistant 2, DJI Assistant 2 for Phantom, DJI_Support, Lack_of_Customer_Support_DJI, New_Drones_DJI, Phantom, Phantom 4 Vr 2.0, Problems with DJI, Problems with Phantom 4 Vr 2.0

12/04/17 GFX 100MP news, looks like another good year for Phase One!!

Posted on December 4, 2017 //

Update on follow-on camera to GFX50S (from Fujirumors.com)

I follow the Fujirumors site, and noticed the other day that it seems that the latest GFX 100s date is now 2019! That totally surprised me as I had assumed up till now that the GFX 100s would easily make it out to users in 2018; at least by mid year. Instead Fuji is going to wait one whole year which is a long wait for the follow on to the GFX 50s. Here is a link to the Fujirumors post: Fujirumors-FujiGFX100S

This means I guess that the follow-0n chip from Sony, the 100MP 44:33 scale Medium Format chip must be delayed or no where as near along in production as many people have been led to believe. Sony has several medium format chip coming in 2018 per their latest road map, and the 100MP 44:33 sized chip is on that list for 2018. The current chip is 50MP and used by several camera companies, Phase One (IQ150,250 & 350), Hasselblad (X1D) and Fujifilm (GFX50s) and Pentax (645z) This chip is much older, being first brought to the market in around 2014 with the Phase One IQ250 quickly followed by the Pentax 645z. It’s a prove performer for sure with great dynamic range and resolution. Here is copy of the Sony roadmap showing the next generation in “full frame” MF chips and “cropped sensor” MF chips.

Sony sensor roadmap for 2018 and beyond.

Fuji and Hasselblad both have taken and given the best from this chip as they both have EVF technology and electronic shutters, something Phase One never figured out or cared to figure out (the technology is there in the chip as Fuji and Hasselblad’s offerings camera 2.5 years later from the Phase One IQ250). But the chip does not have phase detect AF and that is a feature that most mirrorless camera have now. Phase detect allows the AF point to be placed on the chip and in theory are more accurate than the contrast detect that DSLR cameras like the Nikon D850 use. Personally I am not much of a believer that phase detect is more accurate, but for sure you get a lot for AF points over the entire sensor.

What does the 2019 date on the GFX100s mean? Well for Fuji, I guess it means that they will sell a lot more the 50s cameras especially since there has been pent up demand from photographers who were waiting to see when the 100s will announce and ship. Not sure how many of them will be willing to wait 14 or so months for the 100s. The rumored price is for the 100s is around 9K, which is considerably higher than the 6.4K the 50s sells for currently and more thank likely the 5K the 50s will start to sell for mid 2018 as Fuji starts to clear out existing inventory.

The biggest winner here in the Medium Format world is Phase One. WHY? Well lets look for a second at the current Phase One offering.
Their MF body is the XF, which is huge, heavy and not mirrorless
Their best lenses are the Blue Ring” Schneiders all of which are both expensive and heavy, none of which would work well on a mirrorless camera system due to the mass and weight.
Phase One currently offers 100MP in the IQ3100 and tricolormatic backs (there is also the B&W back), so if Phase gets the new 150MP chips show in the chart above in 2018 and brings them to market by mid 2018 or 3rd quarter 2018, they will have a chance to gain Market share
Since both Fuji and Hasselblad are mirrorless in design, but won’t have a new camera until 1 quarter 2019, Phase One has a lot more room to attempt to get out a mirrorless offering of their own. (this is overdue in my opinion)

This will also help the 35mm Digital camera market, of Sony (A7 family) Nikon (D850) and Canon (when and if they offer an improved 5Dr). All of these companies already have 45MP to 50MP cameras in the 35mm format with a huge offering of lenses, vastly larger than either Phase One or Fuji currently have. So possibly more photographers will now move towards the 35mm cameras with larger sensors then wait 1 full year to get the 100s or X2D (whatever Hasselblad wants to call it). There are always the rumors that Sony will sometime soon enter the MF market also, with either a fixed lens camera or a entire system like Fuji’s. So many more options are possible. The fact that Fuji now seems to feel that 2019 is the soonest for the 100s also makes me wonder if Sony is working on a camera for 2018 which will use the 100Mp 44:33 sensor? Why not, they make great cameras for sure.

Anyway, my thoughts were all wrong for 2018. I had figured that 2018 would be the year that MF digital starts to really take over the higher end market since at least 2 companies would have 100MP solutions in the 8K to 14K price range. Without anything new to help push the pricing down, there is no reason for Phase One to lower their price point. They have never been in a “gain more market share, buy the business” type of model. Currently, the IQ350 would cost out in the 25K to 30K range new with an XF body and 80mm lens. You can get into the IQ150 (the IQ250 is no longer being manufactered) for around 14K to 17K depending on what you are looking for. And Phase One has been more aggressive recently in the lower end 50MP camera line since Hasselblad has their 50c out. But none of these cameras are mirrorless, and they rely on the older style H6D or XF camera bodies.

Fuji has always stated that all of their lenses are designed around the resolution needs of a 100MP sensor in the 44:33 size. I am now sure how they determine that without a sensor/camera to test, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt. So far their lens offering have all be excellent for the GFX system. Now for 2018, we can only expect to see something from Phase One, in the 150MP space and that again will only work for about 2% of all the photographers in the world, not a big market for sure. I am still shocked that Fuji will not be able to bring the 100s out in 2018, as a year long wait in the digital camera world is huge and many products can and will be brought to market that may challenge even 100MP.

Written for “paulcaldwellphotography” on 12/04/17 by Paul Caldwell

Information and pictures for the FujiFilm 100s were obtained from Fujirumors.com, however I have not directly copied anything from their site, beside the one picture of which I have given full credit to Fujirumors.com.

Filed Under: Fuji Cameras, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: Fuji, Fujifilm GFX100s, FujifilmGFX, FujiGFX camera, Future Fuji cameras, Future Fuji Medium Format cameras, GFX100s

10/16/17 Nikon still has a long way to go with the D850–B&H still has not fulfilled all the orders placed 1 hour after open order window.

Posted on October 16, 2017 //

The mysterious Nikon D850 does it really exist for the rest of the world or just NPS members.

My high hopes for a 2017 arrival of the D850 were dashed today after my call with B&H. My first day order was placed at 7:00 am on 08/24/17. B&H opened the window at 3:00am. I had tried at 1:00am, but the window was not open. However I guess the real go getters just stayed top and kept trying and kudos to them. I got my order in at 6:00am Central 7:00 to B&H. B&H customer service told me that now after 3 separate shipments from Nikon, they have not yet even filled the orders that were placed in the 1st hour. NET, it’s going to be a very very long time before B&H gets to my order close to 4 hours later.

I had some hopes for the Nikon D850 and from what I have read from the few either lucky owners, or NPS shooters (who did not dump the camera on eBay) it will be a significant improvement over the D810. Resolution differences between the 36mp of the D810 and 46/47mp of the D850 are not that much. However some of the other features like:

Full Electronic shutter
Tilting LCD
2x resolution on LCD
Vastly improved AF and Low light AF
Focus stacking built in (similar to the Phase One approach)
Slightly improved high ISO (but this appears not to be a full stop as expected)
7 to 9 fps depending on use of grip (but you have to use the D5 battery, battery not expensive, charge is @ $500.00)
Touchscreen for image preview and live view
Improved color rendering over the D810, especially blues and greens

Just having a tilting LCD makes the upgrade worth it for me, and the full ES also.

The fact that Nikon is having financial trouble is very clear to me now. It’s been almost 2 months since Nikon announced the D850 and lets be totally honest the camera had been talked about for over a year, and everyone knew it was coming in 2017. Nikon started to ship in the U.S on 09/07/17, to mainly NPS orders (don’t get me started on NPS) and a few others. Then there has been two other official releases. It’s also apparent that B&H expected a lot more cameras than they received in the 2nd round as I had been told to expect mine D850 by the end of September. There was a release which covered that time frame but nowhere near enough cameras.

With B&H only covering the 1st hour, it’s going to be a long time before Nikon gets the camera in ready stock, more than likely 1st quarter 2018. I fully understand it’s a new product, but really so what. Nikon is manufacturing company which apparently has no clue on how to forecast supply and demand. Folks there wasn’t an earthquake this time or tsunami to stop Nikon, just poor planning. It’s too bad as they do make great cameras and it appears that the D850 is no exception.

Written on 10/15/17 for www.paulcaldwellphotography.com and copy write protected

Paul Caldwell

Filed Under: Nikon Cameras // Tagged: Bad planning by Nikon, Buy a Nikon D850 today, Nikon can't ship a product, Nikon D810, Nikon in Financial trouble, NPS

09/07/17–Nikon Still has not learned how to ship a new camera the D850

Posted on September 7, 2017 //

As anyone who is a Nikon photographer knows, the highly anticipated D850 finally started to ship today worldwide. But instead of a flood of new cameras hitting the stores, it appears that Nikon was barely able to ship enough cameras to even cover the NPS orders. So the common folk like myself are left holding the bag once again, just like with the D800. To add insult to injury, I received this email from Nikon this afternoon.

Stupid Nikon Ad

Lets see, the wait is over? Really? What a Joke!!, when actually the wait has just begun.

It’s really amazing that a company such as Nikon can’t figure out how to cover a first day shipment of a new camera. They had the same issue with the D800 and D800e when they were announced. At first the D800 was hard to get, and the D800e next to impossible but after about 4 months the supply started to free up.

Lets move forward 2 years, Nikon announces the D810, possible the best DSLR they have ever made, but again there were supply issues and quality issues. So those like myself who paid in advance, received a camera and had to turn it right around to Nikon to have the white dot issue fixed.

Now Nikon can’t even ship enough cameras to cover the NPS orders. NPS, (Nikon Professional Services) is next to impossible to get into now as you have to have 2 other professional photographers sponsor you. Ever try to get your competition to sponsor you? Leaving NPS alone, it’s amazing to me that Nikon was not able to ship enough cameras to cover 1/3 to 1/2 of the first day orders.

Did Nikon just announce this camera, NO, it’s been in the works now for over 3 years. Nikon has toyed with users for the past 6 months maybe longer talking this new camera up. They pre-announced the announcement and received a ton of good press. NOTE TO NIKON, when you start to see a lot of good talk on the photography forums, you might WANT TO START making some cameras. NOT wait until the 24th of August of 2017 to start making cameras to cover all the orders you have received.

This is not a revolutionary camera, like the D800 was or the D810. It’s just a upgrade to an already great platform with some nice updates to AF, LiveView, High ISO, and LCD (there are more for sure). But either way, Nikon should have been more in touch with what they needed to manufacture.

There has not be an earthquake or a tsunami or any other type of catestrophic event that Nikon had to work around. I have to wonder who is in charge over there. It’s well known that Nikon is not doing the best financially, so this issue doesn’t make things look very good for them. Surely someone in such a large company understands what forecasting is about? Don’t they? Maybe not.

But of course cameras are showing up in places like Best Buy (really go figure) or Amazon (NPS cancellations), etc. This happens every time, but just makes this process all the harder to understand.

I guess the best policy is to just keep the order out there with B&H, and hope that something frees up sooner than later.

Written by Paul Caldwell for paulcaldwellphotography.com 09/07/17

Filed Under: Nikon Cameras, Photographic Equipment, Uncategorized // Tagged: Buy a Nikon D850 today, First day orders D850, Nikon D850, Nikon screws up again, shipping for Nikon D850

08/03/17 Goodbye to the Fuji-GFX Facebook group–after amazing responses to copyright issues

Posted on August 3, 2017 //

I joined the Fuji GFX facebook group before I even had a Fuji GFX to work with. Initially I found it to be very good group as for once there was world wide membership. It was refreshing to hear from other photographers outside of the U.S. I did find that it seemed that the mix was a good one, between professional and amateur photographers. I have never had any problems with a non-professional’s opinion and in fact I have learned a lot from these type of forums over the years. However I am a professional photograph, net I earn 100% of my living from attempting to sell my work. As I am landscape photographer and printer not a studio shooter the jobs I get can be few and far between. However the time and work I spend finding, capturing and then developing a shot is considerable. So when I find that my work has been taken without my permission, I do get a bit upset.

My website, www.photosofarknasas.com has always had a listed copyright. However it was still possible to print screen images from the site as I did not use a visual copyright on my galleries. For years I have been able to market my work to large corporations looking at needs for new offices or hospitals in my state of Arkansas. The listed copyright seemed to take care of any issues and thus the need for a visual copyright on each image was not necessary. This was until late May of 2017, when I found that a Candlewood Suites chain hotel was using my work, and a lot of it without my permission. The total number of printed images is between 100 and 260, and I am betting on the later as I know for sure that 2 rooms each have 2 of my images, the hotel has 130 rooms, simple math folks, 260.

That issue both stunned me and disappointed me as I quickly found out that as a single owner of a small business, there is really no recourse, i.e. I can’t sue the company as even if I win the cost of the law suit will far out weigh any gains I get. So I went back to my site and went ahead with the visual watermarking that I have so long attempted to avoid.

Sunset and moonrise in the Alabama Hills.

This image is an example of what I had to do. I fully agree the use of such watermarking is distracting, however when you consider the fact that someone could easily take the shot and then use it for their own means without paying for it, I choose the visual method.

What was interesting was I submitted this image to the FujiGFX Facebook group and was immediately slammed by critics.

Comments like:

1. It’s raining watermarks

2. I would be complimented if I found out that someone used my work for free, (REALLY)

3. I can’t see the image due to the watermarks. (Total Bull IMO)

Well it was an interesting lesson. I decided to drop out of the Fuji GFX Facebook group. I have no time for those type of comments. Comments made by people who really must not care about attempting to make a living with photography, and just throw their work out to the web. I guess they are the ones that prefer jpgs and the Fuji Film simulations since they “save so much time”. For me, not the case. Lets consider the image in question.

This shot was taken hand held with a Fuji GFX and 32-64 lens. I was working against a quickly fading evening sky, and my tripod was still in the car, over 5 minutes both ways. I knew that the moon would soon be blocked by the clouds, but more importantly I had get the light right then. The scene was one that really required a bracketing series, but I still don’t like using the GFX this way unless on tripod. So I pushed up the ISO to around 800 and then shot 3 vertical shots several times. The images were converted to dngs and then worked up in Capture One, then moved to Lightroom to create the pano. I then used some Topaz Clarity on the clouds. At least a half day of work was one on this shot so I did feel that I was not going to just give it away to some opportunist.

The FujiGFX Facebook group could have handled the issue differently, at least in my eyes. I have stopped using the full visual water marking on Flickr and 500px, just putting my single line copyright. On my website, however I still use the full visual style. To see how one group of seemingly professional folks handled this subject was to say the least eye opening for me. I don’t have time to waste on such worthless and wasted opinions. The fact that people consider such internet theft OK, still amazes me and shows me that they are not working as professional photographers. That an amateur photographer would feel this is OK, is not good either. It shows that many or most people feel that this type of theft is OK. Back to my loss that I started with, I figure to me the total loss was between 6K and 10K. If you feel it’s OK to have such a loss, then I guess we can just agree to disagree. It’s hard enough now with iPhone and other simple devices totally changing the way photography is viewed to make a living without having your work stolen and not even getting credit for it.

I should also note that at the same time I submitted this image to the FujiGFX facebook group, I also placed it on several professional imaging forums that I been a member of for years. I also placed the image on my flickr and 500px accounts and it was interesting to see that all of the feedback I receieve albeit not all positive, all of those “photographers” were able to see around the visual watermarks and view the image. Interesting fact and enlightening fact.

Written by Paul Caldwell for www.paulcaldwellphotography.com

Filed Under: Articles and Reviews, Fuji Cameras, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: Alabama-Hills, California photography, copy, copyrighting photography, FujiGFX, FujiGFX-Facebookgroup, should you copyright, Sunsets, visual-copyrighting

08/02/17 Learning how to make a 5 part stitch panorama from a Fuji X-T2

Posted on August 3, 2017 //

I have written a new Article on how to create a hand held panorama using a Fuji X-T2 and 100-400mm lens, hand held. This article will show you what raw converter (Capture One) and why I choose it over other raw converters on the market. You can quickly see how to take 5 vertical images, work them up in Capture One, export them to Lightroom, create a panorama with a much large overall megapixel count and then do the final color work.

The Fuji X-T2 with 24 megapixels is an excellent platform to work with for panorama stitching.

You can find the full article here: Creating a 5 part panorama with a Fuji X-T2 Camera.

As always, thanks for reading.

Paul Caldwell

Filed Under: Articles and Reviews, Fuji Cameras, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: best raw converter for Fuji, California photography, Capture One & Fuji raw, Capture One and Fuji X-trans, Create a Panorama, Fuji 100-400 lens, Fuji X-T2, Stitching a panorama

04/13/17 A few misconceptions on the Fuji GFX that continue to swirl around the web

Posted on April 13, 2017 //

I have continued to be impressed with the Fuji GFX. I finally found a solution to my needs for a longer lens with the older Mamiya 200mm F 2.8 APO lens. I will be sharing more on that in the future.

What has been a bit disappointing is how some reviewers continue to spread “mis-information”about the GFX. This seems to have started with some early comments made in regards to the “inability” to not measure a Fuji GF lens for focus shift and now has moved into areas like magnified live view, and manual focus capabilities of the GFX. It also seems that many of the problems appear to be from users who have not taken the time to work with the Fuji menu system, which is very similar to the X series cameras from Fuji like the X-T2.

There have been a lot of comments on lack of quality of the Fuji Glass:

My comments are that the optics are excellent, and yes they are light weight but I am happy to have 1/4 the weight of a P1 Schneider LS lens if I can see the same optical quality, which I do with all three of the lenses I have. They are overall excellent to my findings. The 32-64 has a bit of rectinier distortion @ 32mm and on the far left side mine is a bit softer. So I can’t give that lens a 100% great overall review. But so far I have found it to interfere with any photography. The 120mm is amazing and so is the 63mm. The fact that Fuji did not use a LM on the 63mm is a BIG disappointment to me as it’s AF speed is much slower and it will hunt much more often. The AF in low light could use improvement as it will tend to hunt.

There have been a lot of comments on the issue of baked in sharpening on the Fuji Raw:

If you use non supported raw converters on the Fuji Files, which would have no way of reading anything baked in, the files appear fine and sharpen up just they do in LR. I personally don’t believe it’s possible to bake in a sharpening setting to any file but I will leave it at that. Yes, Fuji bakes in the optical corrections to the files that has always been the case with all Fuji cameras, and yes LR will see these and apply them, there do not include sharpening. Note to test this open any Fuji GFX raw which has been converted to a dng in Capture One. Even if the RAF to dng conversion by Adobe keeps the “baked”in sharpening for a raw file, Capture One would not use it period. Capture One DOES NOT support the GFX thus any form of raw sharpening would be dropped. To use a converted Fuji dng in C1 you have to totally drop both the company name and camera name so C1 will open the files with it’s information for a Phase IQ250, not a Fuji GFX.

There have been several comments on the fact that Fuji bakes in diffraction corrections to the raw:

If you use any Fuji camera and turn on “lens Optimization” yes, Fuji will bake in diffractions corrections to the jpg files. These corrections are not supported by raw converters like LR or ACR or even C1 (on the supported x-trans cameras). This has been published many times as these raw converter developers did not want to take the time to figure the algorithm that Fuji used. I have no reason to believe that for some reason, this now works on the RAW for the GFX. I have contacted Fuji US and they have told me the “Lens Optimization” only applies to jpg and “in camera raw” conversions where the Fuji optimization data can be read.

There have been many comments on the lack of ability to use Magnified Live View to manually focus:

Again, it’s possibly that users don’t have a good understanding of Fuji cameras. With Fuji you have two options for the EVF to display the file. As it is with exposure taken into account. And a more wide open max lighted view (display preview off). This 2nd option will give a fully lit view for live view display but you can easily over expose the image since you may forget to read the exposure meter on the far left. With the preview effect off, even in very low natural lighting I have no problems with manual focus in Live View.

There have been many comments on the lack of sharpness in magnified Live View:

Yes, if you zoom in all the way the details will be hard to see. Please understand if you are zoomed in all the way, you have zoomed way past a 100% view, more like 150%. This is similar to attempting to view an image on a D810 in live view with the magnification zoomed all the way in. Net you really can’t tell much. You have 3 zooming options for the Magnified live View, and I tend to use the one in the middle. If you are attempting this without peaking enabled, I believe you will have a lot more trouble determining good focus.

Also, please understand that in preview mode, if you hit the zoom button one time, the camera’s default zoom is WAYYY past a 100% view, and you can’t determine accurate focus. I no of no way currently to dial that one touch zoom down like you can with Nikon. But you can pinch the screen like with an iPhone to shrink the maxed out view back down. In my experience you need to zoom out close to 1/3 of the default view.

I can’t compare to the X1D as Hasselblad is still shipping these in a very limited amount. I also refuse to place a camera on order and then wait up to 8 months to receive it. That basically freezes a capital expenditure for my business that I can put to good use elsewhere. No doubt Hasselblad has totally failed on their ability to deliver this camera in any worthwhile amount. It’s my opinion that this will possibly have an effect on repairs also as if Hasselblad can’t even make enough cameras to cover orders from as far back as June of 2016, how can you expect to have them repair one. Also what is the current Hasselblad repair process on the X1D? Fuji has clearly stated their process of using the current US repair center and has trained current staff on the GFX system.

I just have issues with the fact that it appears that some reviews don’t understand anything about Fuji’s design, and dive in, and then start making claims that the camera is defective, when it’s clear they don’t have a full understanding of Fuji’s focus by wire setup. It’s not perfect but it works. I made a mistake on the Fuji focus by wire setup on the GFX as I assumed it worked the same as with the other X-series cameras, which is not true. With any X-series Fuji, if you are in S mode and switch to M for manual focus, you will receive the message “focus check” as many times the movement from S to M, will move the existing focus point throwing your image slightly out of focus. It is also true with an X-series camera, if you turn off the camera even with the camera in M mode, you will again be asked to “focus check” as the process of powering up the camera will cause you to lose the existing focus point. With the GFX, I have found that neither of these issues exist. You can switch from S to M and or turn off the camera and the current focus point is not lost. I have checked this out a multiple number of times.

If there is a fault for sure the way Fuji designed the neck strap lugs is a bit stupid? They make the use of any other type of strap hard to do and the lug will flip around and get in the way of the memory card door. I prefer to use the Peak Design straps.

Filed Under: Cameras, Fuji Cameras, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: 50MP Fuji, Baked in sharpening Fuji GFX, erroneous information on the Fuji GFX, Focus shift Fuji GFX, Fuji GFX, GFX, Magnified Live view Fuji GFX, misconceptions about the Fuji GFX, Raw support for the Fuji GFX, reviews on the Fujifilm GFX

03/27/17 Review of one of my shots from Calico Rock with the Fuji GFX–Great dynamic range

Posted on March 26, 2017 //

This is a repost from Photos of Arkansas, however I wanted to add it to my blog. This shot is from my 03/10/17 trip to Calico Rock, and the details of how I took shot are below.

Sunset and moon rise at Calico Rock on the White River

Taken with a FujiFilm GFX 50s and 32-64 lens, ISO 200 hand held 5 part horizontal panorama.

Calico Rock has to be one of the best places in Arkansas to go and grab a panorama and feature both wonderful scenery and the White River. Just down stream on the White River you will find the town of Calico Rock and in this photograph the town is visible just off in the distance. You can spend the whole day here and the scene is always changing. On this day, I was there around 5:00 p.m. and there were no clouds in the sky at all. Many times I have been there and just had a huge blue sky with no clouds. For such a shot, clouds to me make it much more interesting, period. However on this day just as sun was starting to go down, a line of clouds rolled in and the moon rose over them. I could not have asked for a better scene.

On this evening I was shooting the Fujifilm GFX 50S, which is Fuji’s new entry into the Medium Format range of cameras. Fuji is using the same 50Mp sensor from Sony that has been used by Phase One, Pentax and Hasselblad. But this is the first large format camera from Fuji ever, as before all of their cameras have been APS-C. More about the camera in later reviews, but I have to say I am totally impressed with what can be done with this camera. I knew that the sensor had a lot of range since I used the Phase One versions, but never hand held. The Fuji GFX is both considerably lighter than the Phase One XF and the 120mm lens has image stabilization something that no Phase One lens has. Normally I have taken this in 15 exposures, 3 for each segment but with the GFX, I just took an exposure for the middle of the exposure range and pushed up the shadows and pulled down the highlights. Neither of the extremes were blown out. In fact the shadow recovery rivals the Nikon D810 and in fact may be just 1/2 a stop better. But the real amazing facet was just how sharp the 120mm lens was, outstanding optic.

This image has shadow push in several areas, the entire lower half of the left and right sides were pushed at least 2 stops and the middle of the image which was not in the sun was push at least 1 stop. The sky on the far left was pulled down 1 1/2 stops and the sky on the far right was pulled down 1 stop.

I took these Fuji Raw files straight to a panorama in Lightroom first, and then worked on the image in both Lightroom and Photoshop with several Topaz tools.

Overall the color and clarity is excellent throughout, and I have attached a couple of full sized crops below to show this. The first is the lower right side featuring the bluff and the trees along the river. This part of the image was pushed as much as 2 stops and I still have a nice green color in the trees that are just starting to leaf out. The other crop is from the center of the image where the sun was shinning and again you can see that the amount of fine details is very impressive.

Lower right side crop of Panorama

Center crop showing details in the fine tree limbs

Filed Under: Fuji Cameras, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: Arkansas Captured, Calico Rock, Dynamic Range of the Fuji GFX, Fuji 32-64 lens, FujiFilm GFX 50S, photography of Arkansas, Photography with the Fujifilm GFX 50S, sunsets in Arkansas, White River in Arkansas

03/23/17 Fuji Sales Managers in the UK are talking up the GFX–A few thoughts

Posted on March 23, 2017 //

I noticed this post in Fuji-Rumors today: Fuji Rumors and Fuji UK Sales Manager comments

On reading this post, I had to ask myself, is this the same person who told a group of UK photographers 1 week before the 02/28/17 release of the GFX that Capture One would support the GFX? A similar story was told to a group of photographers in Dubai also about 1 week before the UK Sales Manager made his comments. I had to write about this, as I feel that the situation between Fuji and Phase One (who makes Capture One) was very poorly handled.

I have to believe that Fuji was having conversations with Phase One on getting Phase to add support for the GFX in a future release of Capture One (C1). My assumptions are based on the following:

As soon as images of the GFX started to show up on the web, there were many shots of photographers using a GFX while tethered to a computer running C1.
Many of the photographers that had the GFX while under a non-discloser agreement (NDA) made comments on their various blogs that C1 “would” support the GFX.
At least 3 Fuji officials made public comments in early sales roll out meetings that Capture One would support the GFX, several of these comments were captured on video.
Fuji currently doesn’t have a very good tethering solution, and C1 and Phase One are considered state of the art for tethering.
Since the GFX sensor was not designed with Fuji’s x-trans filter array, it would have been easier for Phase One to add support for the GFX since Phase One already uses the same 50MP Sony sensor in several of their own digital backs.

In the past Fuji has given users a scaled back version of Silkypix which is a very limited piece of software and no ability to upgrade to the full license of Silkypix for a discounted price. Now with the release of the Fuji GFX, it’s a clear fact that Phase One will not be supporting it with C1. In the past Phase has made a point of not supporting other medium format cameras as they see them as competition. However Phase currently has no mirrorless platform and their IQ150 (which is the lowest priced back using the 50MP Sony chip), is still close to two times the price point of the Fuji GFX. Long term this will effect sales for P1 but not immediately. Phase did agree to work with Sony to make a special pro version of C1 which supports the various Sony mirrorless 35mm cameras and provides a great tethering solution.

From reading various notes, blogs, and on-line reviews, I have no doubt that Fuji was having some conversations with Phase One in regards to getting support for the Fuji GFX. Fuji executives have mentioned that the conversations broke down and they did not see anything coming soon. I have to feel that all of the Fuji Sales Managers in the field who felt it was OK to state that the support would a done deal was a huge mistake and a poor example of how to handle a possible future deal. Once the fact that Fuji and Phase One were talking, local U.S. Phase One dealers became very adamant that NO THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN, PHASE ONE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE GFX. The fact that Fuji corporate executives and Phase executives may have been trying to work out a deal was not something that local U.S. dealers would possibly not been aware of. However after word leaked about possible Phase One support for the GFX U.S. dealers may have added pressure to Phase One to see that no deal between Phase One and Fuji could happen.

For Phase One, this is not a big deal. They will continue to sell their high end and very expensive digital backs to the photographers that can afford them. But for Fuji I see it as a huge loss. Fuji currently has a few software solutions for raw conversion; Iridient Developer, Lightroom/ACR, and Silkypix. None of these have a very good tethering solution and studio photographer want this. As a landscape photographer there are times prefer to work tethered also. Each of the raw converters I have references all have some issues.

Lightroom/ACR

Adobe tends to make one pass on a raw conversions and they either get it right the first time or you get a less than perfect conversion. Currently the Lightroom conversion has problems with high ISO images from the GFX. As you get past ISO 1600, you will start to see more noise, a red cast to the files and color/detail smearing. It’s possible that Adobe will never re-visit this conversion for years.

Iridient Developer

While Iridient has an excellent raw conversion, I did not find that their dng conversion was that good for the GFX files, unlike their similar conversion for the Fuji X-T2 which is excellent. Iridient’s conversion while good still is limited by the lack of image adjustment tools that both Lightroom and Capture One have. Both of which allow you to work on your image as a raw file not a tif. I doubt that Iridient will ever be able to approach the tools that Lightroom or Capture One offer.

Silkypix

Where do I start?, Silkypix is made in Japan, the English translation in the interface is less that stellar and their help is about the same. Silkypix is lightyears behind Lightroom or Capture One in how image adjustments can be used. Even with Silkypix Vr 8 the software leaves a lot on the table. The version of Silkypix that ships with the GFX is not even the full version of the software, and is dialed back, disabled version. Basically it will convert a raw file to a tif, and that is it. This has been the way the Fuji has handled raw conversion as long as I can remember.

With Lightroom Fuji has a start on a good process, but there is no reason to believe that Adobe will continue to improve the raw conversion demoacsic, which is the real key. If Fuji had been able to work out a deal with Capture One they would have had a wonderfully powerful solution and a huge competitive edge over Hasselblad and the X1D. For now Capture One has a vastly superior raw conversion of the Fuji GFX files especially if they are taken at ISO ranges past 1600. I still have to believe that some of the Fuji Worldwide Sales Manager should have kept quiet about the possibility of Fuji and Phase working out a deal.

Paul Caldwell Photography

Filed Under: Cameras, Fuji Cameras, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: dynamic range Fuji GFX, Fuji and Capture One, Fuji GFX, Fuji GFX and high ISO conversion, Fuji medium Format, Fujifilm 50s, GFX, Lightroom vs Capture One for Fuji, review of Fuji GFX 50s, Working with the Fuji GFX

03/22/17 Dpreview takes a 180 degree opinion on the GFX–my thoughts

Posted on March 22, 2017 //

It’s interesting to see the opinion of the GFX at Dpreview take such a 180 degree turnaround from their first posting. But if you take their points to task, there is not too much to complain about.

1. Low Light Performance, here Dpreview compares with the Sony
A7RII, which in their own side by side tests, does not hold up
well at ISO’s above 1600. The touted BSI design, did not really
do that much from my testing. I was not impressed with the
A7RII past 800 and in fact was surprised to see that many
times the D810 seemingly outperformed it up to ISO 3200. Also
the A7RII is pretty worthless for any long exposure work unless
you turn on LEN, as it has some of the worst noise I have ever
seen. If you use LEN, then you can’t stack without gapping.
AGAIN, I am sure that Dpreview is using Adobe for their raw
conversion, (I hope that they are testing raw not jpg) and not
using C1. YES, LR/ACR do not favor the GFX currently on high
ISO conversions, considerably more noise.

2. Base ISO Dynamic Range, comparing with the D810 @ ISO 64.
Sure the D810 has a lower range, but from shooting the both
cameras side by side, the shadow push on the GFX is amazing
at ISO 100 and 200. I would say equal to at 64 compared to 100
and the GFX will still perform better at ISO 200 over the D810 @
ISO 200.

3. Shallow DOF, this one surprised me. Not too many MF
photographers on Dpreview? MF has a shallower DOF out the
gate over 35mm, so you don’t need a F 1.2 lens, a F2 lens
should be acceptable. Only time will tell as Fuji has not given
an idea as to when the 110mm will ship. I have shot MF for
years and have spent thousands on tech cameras to allow for
tilt to counter act the inherently shallow DOF of MF film and
sensors.

4. Resolution Canon 5DS-R compared to the GFX. Totally
surprised me, based on my use of the Canon and especially
Dpreview’s own reviews of the 5DS-R. Even at it’s lowest ISO
range, I can’t see the Canon holding the same or better
resolution than the GFX, and past base ISO the noise and
banding will defeat the image quality.

Fuji has some warts with the GFX however.

1. No C1 support, they should have figured out a way to get
C1/P1 to write a Pro version for this camera. Current tethering
support is not that good and as I mentioned LR raw conversion
is not that good for higher ISO images, (could be better).
Fuji continues to push a scaled version of Silkypix. If you want
to make it in the pro world (where this camera will be the
most appreciated since the iPhone and similar devices have
now placated the masses, you have to come out with a better
software interface for your raw (NOT JPG) files.

2. Fuji totally missed the mark by not having all 6 lenses available
at first release. Why? Were they no 100% sure the camera
would be successful? Fuji needs to get the 23mm and 45mm
out now. As to the comments by Dpreview there is no way
Fuji will ever catch up the number of lenses available for 35mm
cameras, period. Moot point. However the lenses that have
shipped optically are stellar, and that can’t be said for many
35mm lenses.

3. MF Clutch on the lenses. Due to the focus by wire design
of Fuji, you really NEED to have a MF clutch on the lens.
Fuji incorporated this on many of their X series primes but so
far none of the GF lenses have this. Since you lose your focus
point (even in MF mode) when you either turn off the camera or
switch to playback mode, it would be nice to have a clutch that
over-rides this just like the X series primes.

Paul Caldwell03/22/17

Filed Under: Cameras, Fuji Cameras // Tagged: C1 Fuji Raw conversion, Capture One and GFX, dynamic range Fuji GFX, feedback on the GFX, Fuji cameras, Fuji GFX, Fuji medium Format, review of Fujifilm GFX 50s, Review of GFX

03/15/17 Fujifilm GFX 50S–An example of excellent Dynamic Range

Posted on March 15, 2017 //

The FujiFilm GFX 50S uses the same 50MP chip that has been used by several camera companies over the years. Phase One uses this chip in the IQ150,250 and 350, and Pentax used it in their 645Z. Recently Hasselblad used the chip in the 50c Medium Format back and the new X1D mirrorless camera.

In tests I had made with the Phase One IQ250 and IQ150, I saw that the Phase One implementation provided some excellent dynamic range in the ISO 100 to 800 range, but still seemed to be a bit noisy past this. Especially when shadows were pushed. I was hoping to see the same amount of push with the Fuji implementation in the GFX. I was able to test this on a recent shoot at Calico Rock. I worked as series of 5 part panos all hand held. My goal was to only shoot 1 shot for each segment and not have to bracket the exposures since I was hand holding the camera. The last segment on the far right was a classic shot where half of the image was in shadow and the other half in full shade. I was metering more to protect my highlights, so the shadows were exposed very dark. This can be seen in the side by side shot below.

In this side by side view you can see the original shot on the left and where I have pushed up the shadows on the right side. From this view it’s a bit hard to really tell just how much room there is in the file taken at ISO 200. So I have taken a few crops at a 100% view. In this view notice the amount of details that are present in the rock bluff and trees along the bluff. Also note how well the light green leaves show up.

Shadow push from the Fujifilm GFX 50S

In this shot, by far the most impressive, look at how much color and detail were still available. Look for the green pine needles and the brown fall leaves on the oak. Also you can see again a lot of finer branch details that were not visible before I pushed the image. The key here is the image before is basically black, so the amount of push is close to 3 stops total, between exposure push and shadow adjustment.

Comparison for Fujifilm GFX 50s on shadow push.

Not bad!! In fact excellent for ISO 200.

This type of push would easily hold up in a large print. So what I have learned so far:

The Fujifilm GFX allows easy hand held work with the 120mm lens and 32-64mm lens
There is a huge amount of room in the shadows for push from the base ISO of 100 up to around ISO 800
You can get easily 1 to 1.5 stops of push up to ISO 1600
The files hold up very well with no loss in color saturation, no smearing or excessive noise
By far the best raw converter is Capture One on files where you are attempting to push shadows

Filed Under: Cameras, Fuji Cameras // Tagged: Arkansas Landscape photography, Calico rock Arkansas, dynamic range Fuji GFX, Dynamic range with Fuji GFX, Fuji 120mm macro lens, FujiFilm GFX 50S, review of Fujifilm GFX 50s, Scenic creeks in Arkansas

03/11/17 Feedback on Fuji GFX 50s–A great start for Fuji with Medium Format

Posted on March 12, 2017 //

After a lot of waiting and wanting, Fuji has delivered the GFX to worldwide use. I am extremely grateful to have one as it’s readily apparent after the first round of shipments, that the April 2016 earthquake affected the Sony Chip plant a lot more than many in the U.S. understand. Fuji is still backordered on the X-T2 almost now 1 year since it’s announcement. And now the GFX 50s is slowly filtering into the photographic world. Most of the information I have seen and comments are from photographers in the far east or Europe. Very little U.S. reaction, but I am aware that there is a huge back order on the GFX. I am very grateful to B&H Photo for getting me at leas the GFX 50s and 32-64 lens. I had to move to Amazon to find the 120mm, but it arrived in one piece even though the shipped just dropped the Fuji box in another box with no padding, Amazing. Fuji can’t even ship the lenses in any volume.

I ordered my GFX on the 19th of Jan, with the the 32-64 lens, then on the 24th added the 120mm (even though I feel it’s grossly overpriced for what you get), then 1 week later ordered the 63mm. I held off on the 63mm, as it’s equivalent to 50mm on a 35mm camera and I just don’t use that focal length much. I also had the sense to order a spare battery, as they are also in very short supply. For a all day shoot, you will need more than 1 battery. Possibly 3, and they don’t charge up very fast, taking around 1 hour to 90 minutes to fully charge a battery with the Fuji Supplied charger.

There are a lot of comments out there about the GFX being ‘ugly”, or “huge”, or “DSLR” like etc. Most of this seems to be coming from photographers who purchased the Hasselblad X1D. No doubt the X1D is smaller, lighter, and a more striking camera, but for me in my work the GFX fits just fine. I prefer to have a tiling LCD, always. I like Fuji’s placement of the Shutter speed and ISO settings on the outside with separate dials. The remote’s I that work with the X-T2, worked fine with the GFX including the intervalometer, excellent. The grip is large enough to hold but I wish they not put the Q button on the grip, as I hit it all the time.

For my work, the GFX fits in very nicely. I was able to hand hold the camera for multiple pano shots very well. As a landscape shoot only, I feel that Fuji missed the mark on a few of areas.

1. No manual MF clutch on the lenses. If you are working a critical scene, and need to check your focus by going into play mode, the GFX drops the previous focus point just like the X series cameras. You can hit focus check and attempt to get it back, but since the camera is focus by wire, you will never really hit the exact same spot twice. If the lens had a MF clutch like many of the primes in the X line do it would be possible to switch the lens to MF via the clutch then manually focus, check your focus in play mode then continue to shot knowing that focus point did not change. Making such high end glass without a MF clutch to me is a bit oversight. NOTE, just switching the camera to M from S will not fix this issue. Each time you go to play to check focus you will lose previous focus point.

2. I have an issue with the fact that on play back the default zoom is way past 100%, more like 150%. I don’t understand why Fuji allowed the one push zoom to go past 100%. I you want to enable zoom past 100% fine, but let the default be 100%. Without this, each time you check your focus you are forced to pinch the screen down to zoom out as using the wheel doesn’t allow as precise a control. You cannot determine good focus with a 150% zoom, just like you can’t on a Nikon D810 which also zoom way past 100%.

3. The GFX continues as the X series cameras do to blur 1 of 3 bracketed shots. This happens as you drop your shutter speed down into the 1/15 to 1/4 of sec range during the bracketing. Of course I am using a tripod for these slower shutter speeds but the camera managed to blur many of the slower shots. I did no have the electronic first curtain enabled or electronic shutter, and I guess I should have tried them.

4. I would have greatly preferred to have the drive mode controlled with a switch around the ISO dial just like on the X-T2. Sure you need to setup the bracket in the camera menu just like you do on the X-T2, but to engage it I prefer a manual switch. The “drive” button is not in a great location on the GFX, being on the front top of the camera.

5. Fuji made the base of this camera huge. So it’s going to be very costly to make a L bracket for it. I understand the need for the bulge for the battery and LCD, but couldn’t have there been a slight extension added to the base to give it a more narrow appearance. Just me I guess.

6. AF performance in good light is excellent, in fact I feel it’s better than my X-T2 or X-Pro2. However in low light, often times the camera gets a AF lock, but it’s not accurate. This fooled me quite often on my first outing. With subjects way off in the distance, you will need to check your focus via playback to make sure you captured the best focus.

7. The current Lightroom/ACR conversions for higher ISO files is terrible. I have compared them to in camera jpgs and conversions by Capture One and the Lightroom conversions have way to much noise, and color smearing around areas of light and dark transition. Thank goodness it’s a simple thing to make the raw files open in Capture One, or I would more than likely returned the camera. The software that Fuji includes is worthless, a cheapened low end version of Silkypix. Fuji should have worked closer with Phase One to attempt to get P1 to break policy not supporting any non P1 Medium Format cameras.

Overall the camera is a wonderful addition to my toolset and I will use it often. The files are amazingly clean and the lenses deliver excellent clarity and sharpness. Hand holding the camera is very possible and I sure hope that the soon to be released 23mm and 45mm share this same high end quality.

Paul Caldwell

Written on 03/11/17 for paulcaldwellphotography.com

Filed Under: Fuji Cameras, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: 50s, Fuji medium Format, Fuji X-series, Fujifilm 50s, FujiGFX Fujifilm, GFX, review of Fuji GFX 50s, Sony 50MP MF sensor

08/20/16 Trouble at F-Stop? Maybe, Maybe Not

Posted on August 18, 2016 //

F-stop main page no1

There has been a lot of negative press about F-stop recently. It seems that there are many claims about long wait times, orders never shipping and extremely long back order times. I had noticed earlier this year when I tried to order a Shinn backpack, that F-stop was showing them 4 to 6 weeks from being in stock. I was not really in much of a hurry to get the pack in January, so I waited. F-stop has come out with a new Orange color, that I really wanted as I hike during hunting season in Arkansas and bright orange is help against getting shot. I finally got around to ordering and found that the Shinn was still sitting in the same status, 4 to 6 weeks, etc. About this time some negative posting starting to appear and also some negative web based articles on the company.

It seems that some claim that they had paid for packs months ago, and still had not received anything, but they had paid at the time of the order. Also several articles were concerned about the Kickstarter campain that F-stop had for a new pack. I personally am surprised that F-stop went this route as that is not what I would do with a large company i.e try to gain funding via a Kickstarter. However the owners are young and they are working a different business model. The Kickstarter was supposedly cancelled and then issues came up about money again, since it seems that none of the money paid into the Kickstarter will be paid back? Not sure on that but it started a big wave that F-stop was gone, going under, no longer in business etc. Many folks reported that they were down to just 1 person in Customer relations, etc. Not sure about that either, but here is my story, and it’s a lot more positive.

I called them, (yes I actually picked up the damn phone and called them). On the first try, I got a person at the other end of the line named Mick. I mentioned to Mick I wanted a Shinn and XL-Pro ICU, in the orange color. I also told Mick that I was starting to hear some really negative things about F-stop and I did not want to order a pack for $500.00 and then wait 6 weeks, never get anything, and then have to worry about getting a credit. To my total surprise, Mick said just order it, and email the company (with their attached form on the website) and that he felt that he could get a orange Shinn shipped to me within a week! He also told me that the only hold up was the extra wide ICU for the Shinn, that these were taking longer to be delivered to the US. I was really not wanting the extra wide ICU, just an XL Pro ICU. The issue is that the Shinn is about 3 inches wider and thus the XL Pro ICU will not fit tightly. After talking to Mick for a while, I realized that the Sukha was the pack I wanted. He gave me the same information, order a orange Sukha, and XL-Pro ICU and he felt I would have it ship in about a week. Facts are F-stop shipped the pack and ICU in 3 days to me and I had it 4 days. Free shipping! To be honest, I sure that more folks will at least call F-stop as it seems they can manually get some things done.

BTW the Sukha is a great pack, and I will write more about it in a while.

I have now seen that one of the top company officials has written a formal note on the F-stop blog, mainly to talk to the delays in getting the product from China. Hopefully F-stop will get this issue fixed and soon as with the modern web, it’s hard to recover from really negative press. Again I stress, if you want an F-stop pack, give them a call and see what they can do for you.

: F-stop Satori and Sukha side by side no1

: Front view of Sukha and Satori by F-stop

Photographer’s Notes:

Everyone knows that about 3 years ago F-Stop packs came on the photo scene and they pretty much revolutionized the market. The most important aspects of their new design were:

Integrated ICU inner containers that would hold the camera gear and were 100% removable from the pack.
The main opening for the pack was moved to the back instead of the front, which as far as I know had never been done before.

F-Stop came out with several packs of varying size and weight, but the ICU’s were all interchangeable. The packs were made in China, and then shipped back to the US. Really nothing new there. And as their name grew across the photographic world, F-stop continued to come out with new packs, and new materials. I have never figured out the percentage of the market that F-stop has over Lowe, but I have to feel based on all the forum posts I read, F-stop did very well in those first few years. My first pack from F-stop was the Satori, which was a moderate to large pack and it served me very well. I have used this pack extensively over the past 3 years, and have never had any problems with it.

The Satori was the first pack I purchased from F-stop and as I am 6′ 2″ tall, this pack always fit me a bit low. However the pack itself was excellent in construction. You have to get used to the opening up against your back, but that doesn’t talk long. ONE note, if you are with another person who doesn’t understand the F-stop design, don’t ask them to move your pack unless you know that the back is zipped up.

With the Sukha, F-stop came out with a pack mainly for carrying long telephoto lenses, but I also figured that this pack would be a better fit for me and I was correct. F-stop is now also using water-resistant fabric and they have a new material on the bottom of the backs as can be seen in the couple of side by sides I have posted. This is much heavier black nylon than my Satori has. There are also some changes to the ICU’s as the new style allow you to removed the top foam padding which is a nice feature. The Sukha has a huge carrying capacity, as it will hold the XL Pro ICU and with that installed in the pack you still have 1/4 of the pack left for other items.

Hopefully F-stop will continue to produce these excellent backpacks and bags well into the future.

Filed Under: Hiking, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: camera backpacks, delivery issues F-stop, F-stop backpacks, F-stop ICU, F-stop packs, F-stop Satori, F-stop Shinn, F-stop Sukha

02/18/16 Drones and comparisons to modern DSLR or Medium Format cameras

Posted on February 20, 2016 //

Modern Drone for Video photography

I held off on this as I have always tried to look at the positives and post the same way, but I feel that this post has too many negative implications, especially when attempting to compare the 12MP output from any current drone to a still from a Medium format back or modern DSLR.

There was a recent post on Luminous Landscape, where a photographer was bemoaning the fact that his son’s 12MP drone camera would allow for a better image from a 4K still than a IQ180 80MP raw file.

First and foremost, I was personally shocked to see a photographer compare the results from “ANY” current drone to the results from any Phase One back, be it a P25 to IQ180. If you are happy with the 12Mp shot from a drone camera then there seems to me to be a total lack of need for an IQ180, perspective abilities taken into account or not. The vast majority of cameras in use today are gopro and I know that they can take 4K, the OP implied the shot was not from a gopro. Still I would like to see two shots, a still from the 4K drone and a still from the 80MP 180. No to mention the drone is only going to shoot a jpg more than likely and the Phase file will a raw with a ton of room in it for work in post. I work worked with several very highly rated (rated in both flight and photography) drone shooters and I have seen the stills, no more needs to be said. Sure you can now mount a 100MP Phase Back on a drone, and shoot stills. I hope you have great amount of insurance as it’s not a matter if it will crash, but when.

But what concerned me more is the thought that any 12MP image taken at 4K, would be the same quality as 80MP still from a IQ180, if the files look that close there is something wrong with the IQ180. The 12mp sensor on the drone more than likely is not even the size of a micro 4/3’s sensor. Even if it is the quality at 4K still should not be close to the details the 80MP sensor captured.

No doubt also, Drones are here to stay, they are used in every video production team in the world as yes they do offer a great ability to have a different perspective, i.e. from the sky. You see drone work on Discovery Channel, History Channel, Natural Geo Channel, Espn, you can list it out forever. And the footage taken is excellent. In fact to me it’s getting a bit old school. But I can bet that the stills are still 12MP or less and the quality of these cameras is not any better than what’s in a iPhone. In fact it might be less. The sensor is tiny. Look at any of the videos that feature drones, most times if not all, they are pans, moving, and moving fast also. Try to and stop them and look at the trees, or finer details, folks, they are not there, and won’t be for a long time. The tech is not there with the vast majority of Drone cameras yet. (unless you strap on a DSLR or digital back). But even when they hover the stills are not that good for a critical print, sure they are fine for the web.

Sadly, in the US, drones have taken on a bad name. I was into drones long before they became “in”, and was flying with first person view before that was common also. It’s great, and the features it offers are excellent. But instead of using this technology in the correct format, no someone has to be the first person to loop Delicate Arch, or fly down to the base of the Grand Canyon, or film the local college football game or fly over the White house, or use the drone around the local airport. All stupid, that stupid it what sticks. All it takes is one serious crash and then all bets are off unless it’s being flown in a closed environment. Drones are loud, and the larger they get the louder they get. Using one in pubic where other people are near by should be taken with full regard to how the other people want to hear the constant high pitch sound of a 6 or 4 engine drone hovering overhead. Most times, this is not done. Where as I don’t know of any still camera that makes enough noise, even a MF XF that you would be bothering someone who is standing 10 feet or even 5 feet away.

I am sorry if I sound critical, but this post just bothers me, as I can think of plenty of photographers that would give an arm or limb to use the IQ180, and to feel that such technology is dated or not able to achieve the results from a 12MP drone, I just will have to say I don’t agree with that. Sure they are not going to get it up to the sky and take a perspective that the drone achieved, but for sure a still from the IQ180 will make a vastly large final print than the output from a 4K still. It is just not that good, at least from all the examples I have seen. If so please post a 360ppi example from your IQ180 and an uprezed image from the 4K drone at 360ppi, or pick 300ppi. Those are the most common required outputs. I really don’t think that the 4K still will hold up. If all that is required is posting on the web, sure the 4K still will work all day long, but the IQ180 was not designed with web sized output as the main focus.

Please don’t attempt to compare output from a device mainly designed for moving photography (video) to that of a device designed around high quality still photography (Phase One IQ180). I have worked with every software tool there is and it’s not like it works on CSI TV, you just can’t make a 12MP image especially if captured as a 72MP jpg, in the sRGB color space in 8 bit. You will not get a good print medium or large from 12MP output. That same drone is not even shooting raw. 12MP native is around a 11 x 14 sized print at 300ppi and to get to 24 x 36 at 300ppi, you are going to need to interpolate up over 300 times. The loss in details is going to defeat the image and you image will look terrible when printed. Will it look OK on the web, sure, the web is a totally different animal and no matter what some say, it’s still mainly designed to run at 640 x 480 at 72dpi, even with the modern Apple Retina screens approaching 2560 x 1440dpi. But the web is a great equalizer, and by the time you down res the 80Mp image to the size of the 12MP, it really will not have any advantage. So sure if all you are going to do is post stuff on Facebook, or Instagram or god forbit Twitter, then use 12MP and go for it. But please don’t begin to tell folks that you can get the same quality print from 12MP and 80MP, for you can’t.

Filed Under: GoPro Video, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: 12MP vs 80MP, 4K still from Gopro, 4K video stills, Can I use my Drone for high quality pictures, comparing a 12MP 4K still to a 80MP output, Drone photography, GoPro 4K video, GoPro video stills, Why Drones suck, Why Drones suck for still photography

12/12/15 News about Lee 105mm adapter rings SW-150 and Nisi filters polarizer and Neutral Density

Posted on December 12, 2015 //

I have put up a new video, which covers the new large format filter rings from Lee filters. These are in the 86mm, 95mm and 105mm size and will work very well with the Lee SW-150 filter holder.

Filed Under: Photographic Equipment // Tagged: Lee 105mm wide angle ring, Lee 86mm wide angle rings, Lee filter pouch, Lee Filters, Lee SW-150 system, Nisi circular polarizer, Rodenstock 32mm and Lee 86mm Filter ring, Rodenstock 32mm and Lee SW-150 system, Rodenstock 32mm HR-W, Using the Nisi filter system

11/27/15 Recent problems with US Nikon Repair Center

Posted on November 27, 2015 //

Normally with Nikon repairs, either under warranty or outside of warranty I have not had any problems. The process is simple, you log on, get a ticket for your lens or camera and send it in for repair. The process has always been straight forward. But the last two repairs I have needed, my D810 and brand new 200-500 lens, have been anything be straight forward. Lets start with the 200-500 lens.

This is of course a brand new lens from Nikon, so new that it’s not even in stock as of this date 11/27/15 at B&H Photo. I was able to get a pre-order in at Bedford photo, my local camera store in Little Rock, AR. The lens arrived in great shape and I was able to use it during the last few weeks of October. However on the last trip out, the rubber ring around lens mount pulled out. This surprised me as in 35 years of using NIkon and Canon lenses, I have never had this type of failure. The rubber gasket had partially separated from it’s mount. This made mounting or removing a lens difficult as the rubber piece tended to get twisted up against the camera’s mounting plate.

I took the lens back to Bedford, and they returned it to Nikon for a warranty repair. I was a bit concerned that parts might be in short supply since this lens is in short supply. However that turned out to be the least of my issues. I sent the lens in on 11/04/15, it’s now the 27th of November. I had Bedford check on the repair on the 25th. The response that Bedford got from Nikon was that the lens had been dropped!! and that Nikon wanted a credit card to cover the cost of the repair. OK, lets just say I was a bit surprised. No I did not drop the lens, period. Optically the lens was working fine when I sent it in, and Bedford also checked the lens out before they sent it off to Nikon for repair. What bothers me about this is that:

Nikon did not contact Bedford Photo, who is one of Nikon largest regional dealers in the mid-south when the lens was received to verify if it had been dropped.
If I had not had Bedford call Nikon about the status, nothing would be happened, the lens would have been just sitting there.

To me this is not the way this should have been handled period. Either the lens was damaged in shipping, or Nikon dropped it at the repair center, either way it left Bedforod Photo in good condition.

I have yet to here anything new from Bedford in regards to a resolution on this issue, but will update this post when I do. Net, the lens had a warranty failure with the rubber seal on the rear of lens mount. I am not sure how extensive the actual repair would have to be, but that particular gasket probably cost a few pennies. I have to say, possible poor construction on the 200-500 F 5.6 also.

The second issue with Nikon repair was with my D810. This was a problem I started as I dropped the camera while putting in the soft case. At the time, I had my 24-120 on the camera and the impact damaged the lens mount. Simple process, logged on to Nikon repairs, and received both a ticket and an estimate for the repair. I sent in the camera body and Nikon received it into repair. Here is where things broke down a bit. I waited 2 weeks to see if anything had updated to my repair ticket Not seeing anything I called Nikon’s repair center and the tech I spoke to claimed the camera had been repaired and shipped back to me. They were going to update the ticket with the tracking information later in the day. Checking back the next day, I found no tracking information, so I called Nikon back. The tech I spoke with this time told me the camera was still in for repair and there was estimate on the time for the repair. This I found a bit surprising so I asked to speak with a manager.

After hold of 35 minutes, a manager came on the phone, and I started all over with the issue. She told me that she would personally look into the problem, and find out where the camera was in the repair cycle and update the ticket/email me. This did not happen, so the next day, I called in again, 3rd time for the same issue. Again asking for a manager, again waiting over 30 minutes, again having to explain everything. This person seemed a bit more focused and put me on hold and made some calls. Net, the camera was still on the repair bench. The repair had been made, but Nikon needed to make some adjustments to the AF. The manager told me that it would ready in 2 days and ship out. This time I did receive an email from the manager and within 24 hours tracking information.

The last surprise, when the camera arrived back at my business, it was packed in a box that was just a bit larger than the camera itself. The camera was wrapped in a bag, I guess to prevent water damage during shipping, but only wrapped in a single layer of bubble wrap. There were about 10 foam peanuts also in the box. Compared to the box I had sent the camera off in, this was not what I expected. Luckily the camera seemed fine, and has worked OK since. But looking back on my 200-500 lens, where Nikon has been sitting on it for almost 3 weeks claiming it had been dropped, it surprises me they would return a camera in such a poorly packed box.

Nikon gear works great, but it seems if you have problems, either within or out of warranty, you may experience some disappointments. I guess if you are lucky enough to have NPS status, then things might be different, but as we all know getting into NPS takes an act of congress.

Filed Under: Nikon Cameras, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: Bedford photo, Nikon 200-500 F5.6 lens, Nikon 200-500 lens, Nikon D810, Nikon repairs, Nikon US repair center, problems with Nikon repairs

11/15/15 New Filter information from Lee and HiTech

Posted on November 15, 2015 //

I have been trying to get a simple filter solution for both a 28mm HR Rodenstock and the 32mm HR-W Rodenstock. Also, now that Phase One is shipping their new wide lenses, the Schneider 35LS and 40-80LS which have 105mm filter threads. The 105mm size is large for sure, but these lenses all use coarse threading which makes things more difficult. Most of your traditional filter companies are not using coarse threads, but instead medium threads. Medium threads are used on most DSLR lenses, and so coarse threading is not required near as often.

The Center Filter for the 28mm Rodenstock is outside threaded to 95mm, and these are coarse threads, as are the 105mm threads on the CF for the 32mm Rodenstock.

I have used the following CL-PL filters on both of these CF’s,

Lee 105mm (new filter, a bit warm, but excellent glass and very very thin)
Heliopan 105mm, Huge filter by far the thickest piece of glass/frame I have ever seen
B+W 105mm is in between the Lee and Heliopan

All of these 105mm CL-PL filters will fit with ease on the Coarse threads of the Rodenstock 95mm and 105mm openings on their Center filters. I believe it’s safe to assume that the outer threads on the 35mm LS and 40-80mm LS Schneiders are coarse threaded. So any of the filters I listed should work without binding. Note, I used the Heliopan 95mm to 105mm step up ring on the CF for the 28MM HR to get to the 105mm opening. Still no issues.

Currently I know of no ND filters in the 105mm size that are SHIPPING and are of a good quality glass. HiTech has listed their Firecrest in 105mm for over a year and I have had 2 on order that long. Last I heard they will ship sometime in late 2015 or Jan 2016. I am not holding my breath. However I will assume these filters will come with coarse threading. BTw, the firecrest glass is AMAZING. No tints at all and they do have an IR coating. By far the best ND I have used in 25 years of usage. The Hitech is shipping these filters in the the large SW-150 size for Lee and the 100 x 100 also that fit the Lee holders.

Lastly, by far the best news, Lee is going to make a 86mm, 95mm and 105mm Ring to allow you to use the SW-150 holder on lenses with these larger openings!!!!!!!!!!!!. This was officially announced at the NY Photoexpo show by LEE. Now when they will start to ship anyone’s guess. However I am assuming that they will be some form of a wide angle design. The SW-150 mounts totally differently than how the 100 x 100 Lee holder mounts, as the inside has a smooth round opening, which the ring fits into. You then screw down a pinch screw that holds the adapter into place. Lee also is using a much improved Light shield on the SW-150, and this will retro fit to the older SW-150’s if you have one. I have all three of these rings on order from the filterconnection, www.2filter.com but still have not heard when they will ship.

Note, due to the weight of the massive front element of the 32mm Rodie, adding a 2 filter SW-150 might not be a great idea, but in theory if Hitech gets off their A** and finally starts to ship the 105mm Firecrest, you have that option. The Lee SW-150 should be a perfect fit for a 35mm LS or 40-80LS as you ain’t going to hurt those massive pieces of glass with a SW-150. I believe that the 28mm HR with a CF (a must for that lens) will work great with the SW-150 and 2 filters. But you can also just take the 95mm to 105mm Helipan step rings and use the HiTech firecrest if they ever ship.

Just wanted to pass this on.

Paul C

Filed Under: Nikon Cameras, Phase One Cameras, Photographic Equipment // Tagged: 105mm circular polarizer, 105mm CL-PL, 105mm ND filters, 105mm neutral density filters, Centerfilter for Rodenstock 28mm, Centerfilter for Rodenstock 32mm HR-W, Lee 105mm adapter ring for SW-150, Lee 95mm adatper ring for SW-150, Lee Filters, Lee SW-150

11/05/15 New testing results from the Sigma 20mm 1.4 Art lens at lenstip.com

Posted on November 6, 2015 //

Sigma 20mm F 1.4 Art Lens

As of this afternoon, the first full review of the new Sigma 20mm 1.4 has been published over on www.lenstip.com You can read the full review here: Lenstip 20mm 1.4 Sigma review

From a quick read I have determined the following:

The resolution of this lens can be expected to be superior to pretty much all other 20mm fast lenses out there, including the recent Nikon 20mm 1.8. It seems that the center resolution even at F1.4 is excellent and by F3.5 to F4.0 the corners are very sharp also.
There might be some issues with Chromatic aberrations, but hopefully the LR lens profile when available will correct for this. The build quality is as expected, excellent as with all the Sigma Art glass
Coma, sadly it seems that this lens falls a bit short with coma corrections. Per the testing at Lenstip, there are pretty harsh coma issues from F1.4 till F 2.0. From their examples, it appears to me that these coma issues are as bad as with the 24mm 1.4 Sigma Art lens. However the example shown at F2.0 looks pretty good to me as there are butterfly wings showing, but nothing like what the Nikon 20mm F 1.8 shows at F 2.0 or even F 2.5. I had hoped that this new lens, which Sigma states “is specifically designed to remove coma” would fare a bit better. In daylight work, the coma aberrations may not show up, but anyone wanting to use this lens at night for astro-photography will be a bit disappointed as the quest has always been to get a wide that will work at F 1.4 without coma.
Build quality appears to be as with all the Art line of lenses, excellent.

Sigma top view of 20mm F 1.4 Art lens

My main need for a fast wide, is night photography, where the difference between F 2.8 and F 1.4 is huge and can allow for a vastly different quality image as you can shoot short exposures of the Milky Way and other starscapes without having to be at a grossly high iso setting like ISO 12800. There was no mention of the bokeh wide open, and again I am hoping to see something better than Sigma was able to provide for the 24mm F 1.4 which to my eyes has a very disruptive bokeh on landscapes, not as much on macro work.

The new Sigma Art 20mm 1.4 already has one strike against it with the fact that it has a fixed hood, and curved outer element which eliminates the ability to use standard filters. Hopefully Lee or another company will come out with an adapter for this lens to use the SW-150 filter setup or something similar.

I have one of the new 20mm 1.4’s on order, hopefully it will ship sometime mid November, but I am not expecting it until December.

Sigma 20mm F1.4 Art Lens dual Views

Filed Under: Photographic Equipment // Tagged: Arkansas night photography, Coma, coma aberration, Coma and Sigma 20mm !.4, How bad is the coma on the Sigma 20mm 1.4 Art lens, night photography, night photography with a fast wide, Review of Sigma 20mm F 1.4, Sigma 20mm F1.4, Sigma 20mm F1.4 art lens, Sigma Art lenses, the effect of coma on star photography

A Tale of two creeks Richland and Falling Water–02_21_19 Featured Arkansas Photography

No Drones allowed in Arkansas State Parks, without a permit–Written 06/14/18

Act 1019 – Surveillance of Critical Infrastructure

Act 293 – Voyeurism

05/18/16 Upgrade to Phantom 4 Vr 2.0–Not everything went smoothly

12/04/17 GFX 100MP news, looks like another good year for Phase One!!

10/16/17 Nikon still has a long way to go with the D850–B&H still has not fulfilled all the orders placed 1 hour after open order window.

09/07/17–Nikon Still has not learned how to ship a new camera the D850

08/03/17 Goodbye to the Fuji-GFX Facebook group–after amazing responses to copyright issues

08/02/17 Learning how to make a 5 part stitch panorama from a Fuji X-T2

04/13/17 A few misconceptions on the Fuji GFX that continue to swirl around the web

03/27/17 Review of one of my shots from Calico Rock with the Fuji GFX–Great dynamic range

03/23/17 Fuji Sales Managers in the UK are talking up the GFX–A few thoughts

03/22/17 Dpreview takes a 180 degree opinion on the GFX–my thoughts

03/15/17 Fujifilm GFX 50S–An example of excellent Dynamic Range

03/11/17 Feedback on Fuji GFX 50s–A great start for Fuji with Medium Format

08/20/16 Trouble at F-Stop? Maybe, Maybe Not

02/18/16 Drones and comparisons to modern DSLR or Medium Format cameras

12/12/15 News about Lee 105mm adapter rings SW-150 and Nisi filters polarizer and Neutral Density

11/27/15 Recent problems with US Nikon Repair Center

11/15/15 New Filter information from Lee and HiTech

11/05/15 New testing results from the Sigma 20mm 1.4 Art lens at lenstip.com

Richland Creek in the fall above the campground

Recent Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta

The Natural Bridge in Lost Valley

Morning Vista from Mt Magzine looking towards the Blue Mountains