"I just can't figure out why these improvements (in the D4s) aren't showing up as dramatically on sites that take pictures of test patterns and test rigs."

I'm with you. And, I suspect that in teasing apart and independently measuring image noise, tonal range, and colour depth in isolation misses something that our eyes instantly pick up on - that these variables (and several more) interact to produce that nebulous characteristic we call image "quality". Either that or Dxomark.com and Dpreview.com are just measuring the wrong things!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

17 March 2014: The Nikon D4s - Installment 2: Nikon D4 vs. D4s - ISO Performance and Noise

Most serious users of professional DSLR's know that as they crank the ISO of a camera up image "quality" decreases. Part of the decrease in image quality with increasing ISO - and the part that many photographers think of first - is associated with increasing noise (both colour noise and luminosity noise). But, other factors also contribute to the observation that image quality decreases with increasing ISO - as ISO increases you also see a decrease in dynamic range, tonal range, and colour depth, all of which impact on how we perceive the "quality" of an image.

The only theoretically objective standard that's readily available to compare the ISO performance of the image sensors of a wide variety of cameras is that of Dxomark.com. When all of Nikon's top cameras had the same resolution (of 12 MP) I found Dxomark.com's published values (and especially those for ISO performance) useful. However once Nikon started moving the resolution of their cameras up (to a current maximum of 36 MP on the D800/D800e) I started to become very puzzled by their results. Anyone who actually shot a D800 or a D600 in the field knew that those cameras were GREAT in ISO performance for 36 and 24 MP cameras (respectively), but that they weren't even close to matching the ISO performance of the D4. Yet if you examined the "Low-Light ISO" performance values awarded by Dxomark.com, both the D800/800e and the D600 actually scored higher than the D4!

Huh - they're claiming that the D800 has better high-ISO performance than the D4? Ludicrous (! How can this be explained? Well...if you dig into the "fine print" of how Dxomark.com does their testing, you'll find that to "normalize" resolution across cameras, they reduce resolution DOWN to a common standard (that's around 8.4 MP) before measuring noise. Of course, that means you reduce the resolution of a D600 MORE before testing for noise than you do a D4, and with the D800 the amount of resolution reduction (compared to the amount you reduce the resolution of a D4) is even greater again! And, of course, reducing resolution of an image functionally reduces the amount of visible noise in an image - and the MORE you reduce the resolution the MORE noise reduction you do! So you're differentially reducing the variable you're examining before you measure it!

With this "normalization for resolution" in mind, here's how you should read the ISO performance of Nikon's full-frame cameras as measured by Dxomark.com:

• Nikon D4: IF you reduce the resolution of the 16.2 MP D4 to 8.4 MP, THEN it's ISO performance value is 2965.

• Nikon D600: IF you reduce the resolution of the 24 MP D600 to 8.4 MP, THEN it's ISO performance value is 2980.

• Nikon D800: IF you reduce the resolution of the 36 MP D800 to 8.4 MP, THEN it's ISO performance value is 2979.

What's all this mean? Basically that Dxomark.com's scores are valid if you're always going to use 8.4 MP images. But, they say pretty much nothing about the noise characteristics of any camera at FULL resolution (and perhaps I'm odd, but I buy cameras intending to use all the pixels they produce).

Flash forward to March 13, 2014. I take my D4s out and shoot action shots of my dogs running in very low light conditions using pretty crazy ISO's (see 13 March 2014 blog entry below). I'm incredibly impressed with the results and guess that I'm seeing about a one stop improvement in ISO performance over my D4 (based on a lot of experience shooting the D4 in low light).

Now flash forward to March 14, 2014. I wander onto Dxomark.com's website and see they have a written review of the D4s where they state (in the section entitled "Nikon D4s Versus D4"):

"The Nikon D4s can boast of a +1/2 stop improvement over the earlier model, and there's a marginal improvement in low-light performance up from ISO 2965 to 3074, not that you'd notice in real word use."

Being on the anal side, I decided to find out what Dxomark.com says about their scoring differences in ISO performance and found this statement:

"A difference in low-light ISO of 25% represents 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable."

So...with a score of 3074 for the D4s and 2965 for the D4, the difference in scores is only 3.6% - so the two cameras should differ by only about 1/20 of a stop. So where did their comment of the 1/2 stop gain in performance come from? I'm confused. And...why did I perceive a big (albeit subjective) difference in ISO performance between the D4s and the D4 while Dxomark.com was claiming the difference in ISO performance of the two cameras wouldn't be noticeable?

What I Did: And, I think you know where this is heading. Yep, time to do my own testing and compare and scrutinize FULL resolution versions of a series of shots captured at various ISO's with both my D4 and D4s. So - I set a high-quality lens up on a tripod and photographed a scene with some in-focus elements, some moderately out-of-focus elements and some completely out-of-focus elements and shot away at ISO's from 100 to ISO 40637. I then processed the raw files using Adobe Camera Raw 8.4 with ALL noise reduction (and sharpening) turned off. And then I spent a bunch of time scrutinizing the resulting full resolution files at 100%. Please note that in this entry (and with these images) I was examining NOISE only (not dynamic range, not tonal depth, not colour depth, and not how well shadow and highlight was retained in the images) - and I used the most important visual tool available - how the images actually LOOKED!

What I found: The results are simple to explain:

• Up to ISO 800: No visual difference in noise between D4 and D4s images when viewing the image at 100% (at 300% magnification the D4s images were very slightly "cleaner" at ISO 800, but the difference was INCREDIBLY small).

• ISO 1000 and ISO 1250: At MOST 1/3 of a stop "cleaner" images with the D4s. In other words, almost indistinguishable images (in terms of noise).

• ISO 1600 through ISO 12800: D4s images noticeably less noisy than D4 images. At each ISO tested (1/3 stop increments were tested) the D4s images that compared to the D4 images in visible noise were invariably 2/3 of a stop higher. So, for example, the amount of noise visible in an ISO 6400 shot taken with the D4 was pretty much the same as an ISO 10000 shot with the D4s (see examples below).

• ISO 12800 through ISO 25600: Difference in visible noise between D4 and D4s images now up to one full stop.

Sample images: Selected sample results for your scrutiny (full res crops from the middle of each shot). All technical info included on the images files...

• D4 vs D4s @ IS0 800: Download comparison images (JPEG: 485 KB)

• D4 vs D4s @ IS0 1600: Download comparison images (JPEG: 888 KB)

• D4 vs D4s @ IS0 3200: Download comparison images (JPEG: 959 KB)

• D4 vs D4s @ IS0 6400: Download comparison images (JPEG: 1.1 MB)

• D4 vs D4s @ IS0 12800: Download comparison images (JPEG: 1.2 MB)

For those who are thinking "boy, those are noisy images..." - keep in mind there was NO noise reduction at any point in the workflow of these images AND that they are full resolution crops. So...NO noise reduction during raw processing, NO noise reduction in Photoshop, and NO noise-reduction via any plug-in. Add a little noise reduction and/or reduce the images in resolution and they begin to look a LOT cleaner fast. For instance, here's an image at ISO 40637 with just a LITTLE noise reduction and then reduced to 2400 pixels in width:

• D4s @ IS0 40637: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.2 MB)

Once Capture One Pro is updated to include raw support for the D4s expect to see many more VERY clean high ISO shots from the D4s.

Two final comments. First, this entry deals ONLY with how visible image noise varies with ISO. As discussed in my preamble, because several variables change with increasing ISO (noise, dynamic range, tonal range, colour depth) and because all of these variables impact on how we subjectively perceive image "quality", it's possible that individual users will "see" slightly more (or slightly less) than a 2/3 stop of an overall improvement in ISO performance of the D4s over the D4 when they shoot it in the real world. Based on the first 1,000 or so images I've shot with the D4s I'm already thinking I will be comfortable boosting my maximum ISO (for any given scene) by one full stop when using my D4s.

Second, between my own findings and the absolutely abysmal results of some top Canon camera sensors by Dxomark.com (when I KNOW that those cameras - specifically the 5D MkIII and 1D-x - produce EXCELLENT results) I'm really beginning to wonder about the value of what Dxomark.com is doing. I'm not claiming they are biased towards Nikon (or away from Canon), but rather question if what they're measuring has any real significance to image quality or how our cameras perform in the field.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

13 March 2014: The Nikon D4s - Installment 1: Hands-on and Some Initial "Play" Shooting

I picked up my D4s last Sunday on my return trip home from my Owls of Manitoba photo tour. And - thanks to a series of avalanches on the Trans Canada Highway that forced me to sit in my car for 4 hours - I had some unexpected free time to study the manual and set my camera up exactly to my liking. Actually, I had SO much time on my hands I was able to literally memorize the manual! But that's another story. Here's a few random "first-thoughts" on the new camera...

1. Ergonomics? For all intents and purposes there is virtually no significant ergonomic difference between the D4 and D4s. Given that for the foreseeable future I will be shooting these cameras almost interchangeably, I think that's a good thing. Yes, the "sub-selector" and "vertical multi-selector" toggle buttons (which are the primary means by which many or most use to move the AF brackets around the viewfinder) on the D4s have a new "knurled" surface and yes, the tiny rubber ramp you rest your thumb on when shooting vertically is shaped very slightly different between the two cameras (and, that ramp does make a bit of difference - the D4s IS more comfortable to hold vertically). But for all intents and purposes EXTERNALLY the D4 and the D4s are the same camera.

2. Menu Items and Set-up? When you have four or five hours on your hands to set-up the D4s with a D4 available for comparison you begin to notice a few differences in the menu items and set-up options on the cameras. As an example, if you use Matrix Metering you'll find there's now the option to (custom setting b5) to have "face detection" on or off. If you happen to be captive in your car and have the time and curiosity to check out what this option does, you'll find that if you consult the manual it tells you that if you toggle it on then it's on, and if you toggle it off, it's off (geez, thanks for that great info - I would have never guessed that!). Fortunately, the screen tips on the camera tells you a little more - i.e., that if toggled on then exposure decisions made by the camera give priority to any faces it detects in the viewfinder. Hmmm. I opted to turn it on (seems like it couldn't hurt). Expect my final review of the camera to include a section describing its effectiveness in detecting bear faces vs. wolf faces vs. eagle faces vs. owl faces! Kidding.

Many of the other small changes in menu options are so small they're hardly worth mentioning. For instance, you can now assign the Preview button to display a grid in the viewfinder with a single push. I kinda like that. The only downside of some of these little additions is that if you like your D4s set up the same as your D4...well...you can't use the new features and maintain set-up parity. Little thing...but it can make a difference in the field.

3. What About Camera Performance? Ahhh - the critical question. Well...I haven't had time to do analytical comparisons of the key "improvements" in the camera (e.g., how the new Group AF function performs; the camera's reported "better" AF algorithms or systematic comparison of ISO performance vs. the D4 in real-world field conditions). But I did do something interesting yesterday - I took the camera out just as the sun was setting and tried shooting action shots under heavily shaded (think dark) conditions as well as after sunset. So I was simultaneously able to get a qualitative feel for how well the AF system worked and begin to understand the ISO performance of the camera. BTW - and my rant below about raw conversion software available for the camera from Nikon will say more about this - PART of the reason I'm not systematically comparing this camera to my D4, D800e or D600 is because I have virtually NO quality raw conversion software available to me at this time. Anyway...here's a little more about what I did:

• Set the camera to Auto ISO with a minimum shutter speed of 1/2000s and with a ISO "ceiling" of 25,600. This means the camera (despite being in Aperture Priority mode) will always "strive" to get to a shutter speed of 1/2000s and choose the ISO (up to ISO 25,600) needed to do so.

• Set the camera to Matrix metering (and I forced myself NOT to use any exposure compensation) - simply to get a gut feel for how it could do with my two black and white "action subjects" (my two Portuguese Water Dogs NOT named Bo) shot in shady and snowy conditions (scenes totally lacking neutral grey)

• Set the AF system to Continuous Servo and 51-point Dynamic Area AF

• Mounted my 400mm f2.8 VR lens on the D4s (with VR on and in Normal mode) and...

• Got my dogs running and having a great old time and...

• I let the camera just rip at 11 fps and do its thing!

What did I find? Well...not much - just mind-blowing performance! Check out these 4 shots. And please keep the following three caveats in mind: First, I converted these images from RAW using Adobe Camera Raw with NO luminosity noise reduction (I left the default value of 25 for Color Noise Reduction unchanged). There was very minor noise reduction during the final sharpening using Smart Sharpen in Photoshop CC (15% on the slider, which I use as my default when sharpening for online presentation of images). Second, I am absolutely certain that I would get even cleaner images if I processed them with my preferred raw converter (Phase One's Capture One Pro) but at this time the .nef files of the D4s aren't supported by Capture One. Third, keep in mind that these images have been reduced in size by about 50% (from just over 4900 pixels to 2400 pixels). I do this because not everyone has an uber-fast internet connection. Be aware that the full res images would show slightly more noise. Anyway...check the shots out - all critical annotations are on the images:

• Jose in Mottled Lighting - D4s at ISO 7200: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.4 MB)

• Jose in Full Shade - D4s at ISO 14400: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.3 MB)

• Poncho in Full Shade - D4s at ISO 16000: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.4 MB)

• Poncho Up Close - D4s at ISO 25600: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.3 MB)

At this point I can't quantify how much better the D4s is compared to the D4 (in either low-light AF performance or high ISO performance). I'm already very confident that in low light the AF system is more accurate, faster, and tracks subjects better - and the difference IS noticeable. Soon I hope to be able to quantify this a LITTLE better. In terms of high ISO performance - based on what I've already seen and on a lot of experience shooting in low-light (in the Great Bear Rainforest and other places) I think it's safe to say the D4s is one stop better than the D4 with respect to noise (and it may be MORE than one stop). How dynamic range, colour depth, and tonal range hold up at high ISO's on the D4s (and how that compares to the D4) is still unknown to me.

Even after shooting just 400 images I can say the D4s is a significant upgrade in performance over the D4. Would it be worth it for most D4 users to upgrade to the D4s? I can't answer that yet (and, of course, it will vary with the needs of the particular photographer).

Finally - how does the D4s stack up to the competition? The D4 was already state-of-the-art. I've shot side-by-side with many Canon 1DX owners (I always forget where the darned hyphen goes) and I recognize it is a very, very good camera. Some (probably all owners of it) would claim it is equal to the D4. That's likely true up to about ISO 6400 - but from what I've seen in the field first-hand, after that point the D4 pulls away a little. The D4s, however, is on a different playing field. This should make most 1D-X shooters rejoice - it means the 1-DX MK II will be WAY better than the 1DX-. And that the D5 will be better again. And so it goes on...

4. A RANT on Nikon's Raw Conversion Software. OK - I like Nikon cameras and I have a lot of money invested in Nikon gear. And, Nikon Canada treats me well. And, I'm not the complaining type. But, to ship a $7000 or so fully professional camera to users without offering them ANY intermediate-to-professional level raw conversion software is simply inexcusable. My D4s - and presumably ALL D4s's - ship with ViewNX 2. This software package offers, at best, introductory level raw conversion capabilities. The other option from Nikon? The beta version of Capture NX-D. I dutifully found the unsupported software online (of course it wasn't in the box - and there wasn't even a reference to it in the documentation that came with the camera). I downloaded it and installed it on my laptop. When I tried to open it (and I'm talking about a NEW MacPro laptop that has NEVER had any Nikon software installed on it) - I received an error message indicating my trial period was over and it instantly shut down. Repeatedly. When I installed it on my Mac Pro desktop computer it actually ran, but was slower than molasses in Winnipeg (pick any month), but then again I only have a desktop with a state-of-the-art processor and 64 GB of RAM. And, the features on NX-D (when they finally execute) are little better than those on ViewNX2! At present, neither Adobe Lightroom nor Phase One's Capture One Pro support the raw files of the D4s (and I certainly don't blame them). There IS a Release Candidate of Adobe Camera Raw (version 8.4) that supports the raw files and allows for raw conversion (thankfully). But Nikon's approach of selling someone a $7000 dollar camera and then functionally saying "sorry...you'll have to figure out what do with the files yourself" is completely unacceptable and totally unbelievable. C'mon Nikon - if you can't do it yourself, at least ensure your partners (like Adobe and Phase One) have the information and lead-time necessary to offer what you can't by the time the camera is released. Don't forget - it's about the USER and giving them what they need and have paid for!

More on the D4s coming soon - stay tuned!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

07 March 2014: Nikon D4s Arrives...But...

A D4s with my name on it arrived in Calgary, Alberta way back on March 5. Unfortunately (or fortunately I suppose, depending on one's viewpoint), I'm around 800 km away in frosty Manitoba leading a photo tour dedicated to capturing images of owls which features Great Gray, Northern Hawk, and Snowy Owls (with the odd Barred Owl thrown in for good measure). I'll be picking my D4s this coming Sunday on my way back to my BC home.

Expect my first comments about its performance beginning mid to late next week right here on this blog!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

27 February 2014: Carnivores, Trophic Cascades, and How Wolves Change Rivers

Many of the regular visitors of this website and blog already know that the main reason I'm a photographer is to support conservation causes. In fact, I prefer to be described as a conservation photographer rather than as a wildlife photographer. My strongest passion is carnivore conservation. The conservation of those animals occupying the top of the food chain is challenging and those fighting for carnivores run into all sorts of obstacles - most of which are the result of long-held but misinformed biases. Take wolves for example - while absolutely hated by a small minority of North Americans, the reality is that they have a low cost to society (for background feel free to read this: On the Cost of a Wolf), but they also have high value to our society (for background on this go here: On the Value of a Wolf). But try getting a rancher or politician to participate in a science-based discussion on wolf conservation...well...that's a challenge up there with getting a photo of a flying pig.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of actively conserving our carnivores is the ecological concept of Trophic Cascades. Simply put, this well-documented ecological process means that small actions at the TOP of the food chain tumble all the way down to the bottom of a food chain - with massive consequences to the entire ecosystem and even the landscape itself. One of the best examples of a trophic cascade in action - and a strong, strong argument in favour of wolf conservation (and even re-introduction in areas where they have been extirpated) - is brilliantly shown in the following short video. Take 4:33 out of your life (or work day!) and give it a look:

• How Wolves Change Rivers (video; 4:33 duration).

For those who want to help in the fight to save our carnivores - the biggest single hurdle faced in carnivore conservation isn't really a technical or logistic one - it's changing the attitude of policy-makers towards cornivores. A great first step is getting folks (including those who are against carnivore conservation) to accept the value and maintenance of carnivores on our planet. And a simple way to do this is to spread the word about this video...so please pass this along!

For the picky critics - to a Brit an elk is a deer (a Red Deer)! Those viewing the video will know what I mean!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

25 February 2014: The Nikon D4s - The Devil WILL be in the Details!

At the stroke of midnight last night (at least midnight somewhere on the planet) Nikon did the expected and announced their new flagship DSLR - the D4s. As most long-term Nikon-o-philes expected, the camera is a refinement - or evolution - of the D4, and remains at 16 MP. The best place to go for the full specification list is right here on dpreview's website...

It would be easy to look at the specs of this camera and ask "what's the big deal?" It doesn't have a teleporter (think Star Trek). It won't soak up atmospheric CO2 and solve the issue of climate change. It won't even improve the gas mileage of your car! And I'm being this facetious to point out how the incredible pace of technological advancement has completely warped what we consider product change or product development.

The D4s offers a huge list of improvements over the D4s - but many of them are important to only limited user groups. For instance, I'm a wildlife photographer first and foremost, so I really don't care much about using face detection (of bears?) to determine metering - but I can see something like that being fantastic for some event photographers or wedding photographers. Additionally, improvements like supporting faster transfer rates when connected via LAN isn't important at all to me, but may be super news for pros in other disciplines.

What are the key improvements of the D4s from this wildlife photographer's perspective? Here's the things that attracted my attention:

• New sensor with claimed improvements in noise at high ISO's (in combination with a new image processing engine - the "Expeed 4" processing engine).

• Improvements in autofocus function - although at this point all we really know is that Nikon is stating "tweaked and improved autofocus algorithms". The D4 AF system was already amazing - if it's significantly better in the D4s - well...this is the kind of thing that can be critical in the field.

• Slightly faster frame rate with full autofocus capabilities (now 11 fps rather than 10 fps).

"What? Only 3 bullet points caught your interest?" Yep, but not all bullet points are created equal - IF the D4s is one stop better in ISO performance and IF those tweaked AF algorithms result in noticeable improvement in autofocus performance in the field, then for me the D4s will be well worth the money. With the D4s - the devil WILL be in the details!

Finally, a few answers to questions I've already received via email:

1. Do you already have a D4s and have you been shooting with it?

No.

2. Are you getting a D4s?

Yes - as soon as possible. Nikon already has my "Priority Purchase" order (for Canadian NPS members).

3. Is there anything else you wished the D4s had or did differently?

Yes - I STILL think it's crazy to have two different card slots - complete pain in the field (among other places). My preference would have been to have two XQD slots. But, on the positive side, they didn't add a third slot (for SD cards). ;-)

4. What about the relative lack of improvement in video capabilities?

For my uses - I couldn't care less. But I do appreciate why this might be important to other users.

5. What about improved battery life?

Nice feature and possibly a noteworthy feature (and bullet point!) for some, but I haven't been limited in battery life in a field situation (even shooting in subzero weather) since the D1. And I often shoot full days in awful weather with big lenses with VR on full-time.

6. What about the new expanded ISO range (all the way up to ISO 409,600 - which is close to ISO one zillion)?

I'm thinking that's likely going to be pretty academic for me. What will be critical for me will be how high of an ISO I can shoot and get very high quality results that I please me and that I can sell - not how high I can dial the camera up to. I did find instances with the D4 where I was able to shoot at ISO 10,000 to 12,800 and get gallery quality results (e.g., check out this bear portrait shot at ISO 10,000). If I can shoot the D4s at up to ISO 25,600 and get quality results that please me I will be in 7th heaven. Fingers crossed.

7. Do I wish the camera was 24 MP?

Well sure - but only if it could be done with no change in ISO performance, burst number and frame rate, etc. Which I'm pretty sure is currently impossible. Bottom line: on this camera speed is far more important to me than going from 16 MP to 24 MP.

8. My thoughts on the new setting permitting the shooting of smaller (2464 x 1610 pixel) raw files?

Not important to me. I use Photoshop in my workflow and know how to crop!

As soon as the D4s is in my hands I will begin reporting my findings and thoughts that are based on real experience with the camera. Stay tuned.

Cheers...

Brad

PS: Twin golds in Olympic hockey - nirvana. Twin golds in Olympic curling - more nirvana. To most Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast, nothing else really matters (but congrats to all our other medal winners). Olympic perfection and Canuck heaven.

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

18 February 2014: Adapting to a High Res World...

Not so long ago it was relatively simple to produce and optimize images for online viewing. You could pretty much assume that MOST displays were in the 72 to 96 pixel per inch (ppi) range and produce appropriately sized (and appropriately sharpened) images that would look fairly similar across devices (baring differences in colour that you can only hope are minor!).

And then came Retina - first on iPhone (326 ppi), then iPad (264 ppi), and then on MacBook Pros (220 ppi). Suddenly our 72-96 ppi display world "expanded" into a 72-326 ppi one! This would be no big deal to how we prep our images for online display if Apple and others moving toward the high density displays showed graphics in their "native" (1:1) resolution. But doing this would mean that all images prepped for that 72-96 ppi world would suddenly be TINY on the high density displays like the Retinas. Deciding that would be bad, Apple decided to build powerful interpolation into their software (including their browsers) and in doing so they instantly "inflate" our images to a "more reasonable" - and much larger - size (so you don't need a loupe or magnifying glass to view a website!). Overall this approach of "blowing up" the size of websites is probably a good one, except for websites of picky photographers (like this one). What were once very sharp images are suddenly soft and, at times, pixelated! Horrors!

There are ways to deal with this new reality, but none are simple and straight-forward or without compromises. Those with a geekoid bent (like me) might be interested in some of the technical solutions as described on the focality.com website, which you can check out right here:

• How to optimize images for Retina and high density screens.

I own 3 devices with high density displays - an iPhone 5s, a "new" iPad, and a MacBook Pro with Retina display. I have to admit that it was paining me to see images on my own website that I knew were sharp appear soft and almost fuzzy on my iPad and, to an even greater degree, on my MacBook Pro. I have enough background in digital technology to realize that if I started optimizing images for the high density displays (simply by increasing the resolution of the source images and "commanding" the browser to display them "smaller" on the lower res devices) that the net result would be MUCH sharper looking images on the high density displays, but slightly softer looking images on the lower "traditional" displays (i.e., those in the 72-96 ppi range). There ARE other ways to deal with the problem (outlined in the reference above on focality.com), but bumping the pixel count of the images is definitely the simplest solution.

So...if one's images are going to appear slightly softer on "traditional" displays but MUCH sharper on the new high-density displays - well...what should one do? An obvious variable in the decision is the percentage of displays out there in the "traditional" vs. high density category. Over the last several months I've watched the website traffic on my website closely, and paid particular attention to what's happening with respect to the resolution of the devices used to view my website. Six months ago only 18% of my traffic was from tablets and other mobile devices (and 82% of the traffic was from desktops and laptops). Today, 30% of the traffic is from tablets and mobile devices. And it's almost misleading to say "tablets" - over 90% of the tablets are iPads with Retina displays and almost all the "mobile" traffic (again over 90%) is from iPhones with Retina displays. And, of the laptops/desktops used to view this website (70% of all traffic) a disproportionate number of them are Macs (44%). And a surprising number of them have Retina displays. Bottom line - when I crunch ALL the numbers, 28% of the current traffic on this website is viewing it with a high density display - and that number is growing fast.

So...time to adapt. As of today, all new "standard-sized" images posted in the galleries of this website will be optimized for the high density displays. The "standard-sized" images are those displayed in the main window of any image gallery after a thumbnail is clicked. I don't have the time to instantly convert all the existing images on this website to high density optimized versions, but over time most will migrate to the new format. This will mean that the new images will appear a LITTLE to a LOT sharper to those viewing this website with a high density display (on Retina equipped laptops this will be determined largely by the users settings of the resolution of the display). And it will mean that pixel peepers on more "traditional" displays MIGHT notice a very slight softening of the images (tho' I'm betting if I didn't say anything would have noticed!).

Curious about how large the differences are? Here's a before/after example from my bear gallery (and note that you may have to flush your browser's cache to see the two different versions):

• Optimized for High Density (Retina) Displays.

• Optimized for Lower-Res "Traditional" Displays.

Check out both images on any or all devices you own - odds are if it's a "traditional" display you won't notice much difference between them. But if it's a high density display (especially Retina iPad or Retina MacBook Pro) the version optimized for a high density display will appear noticeably sharper.

Finally - I have to do the Canadian thing and apologize. To who? Those on lower-speed internet connections or with limited bandwidth. The method I'm using to produce the new high-density-display-optimized-images (that's a mouthful!) increases their file size by about 30% to 80%, depending on the scene. Sorry 'bout that - but...hey...it's a PHOTOGRAPHY website!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

11 February 2014: Introducing...The Natural Art Images Newsletter!

Looking for a simple way to stay on top of critical goings-on in the world of wildlife photography? You know...stuff like real world field tests of current camera gear that provide you with the REAL lowdown on how it actually works in the field and not just what some marketing geeks WANT you to think? How about tips that will help you ensure that your images are the sharpest they can possibly be? And wildlife conservation issues that could affect how you work in the field now and in the future? And a whole lot more...

Well...then there's no doubt about it - you NEED to sign-up for the Natural Art Images Newsletter! And signing up is simple as pie! Just email me at:

• newsletter@naturalart.ca

• Stuff you MUST include in your sign-up request: Just your name (first and last) and your email address!

• Optional info you CAN include: Country, province/state, and your camera brand

More About the Newsletter...

A few anticipated FAQ's (and answers) about the newsletter:

1. Are you going to fill my in-bin with junk email?

Nope - not at all. You'll get 4-6 newsletters per year and that's it. And, they'll come ONLY when I have interesting information and/or worthwhile content to share.

2. Are you going to sell or share my email address?

Absolutely NOT. I won't share it, lend it out, rent it out, sell it, or abuse it any way. Guaranteed.

3. Are you going to give me a chance at nabbing your used camera gear BEFORE you put it on your website?

Good idea - sure I'll do that.

4. Are you going to give me a chance at booking a spot on your most popular photo tours BEFORE you put them up on your website or market them anywhere else?

Another good idea - sure I'll do that too!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

5 February 2014: Major Re-working of "Stuff I Use - Lenses" Page

Can you tell that one of my goals for this week was to make some long overdue updates to this website? ;-)

I just completed a major re-working of the page on this website that describes what lenses I use (and why). This page also lists what lenses I have "discarded" - and why I discarded them. The re-working of the page was done to accommodate my acquisition of the AF-S 24-120mm f4 VR; the AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR; and the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR as well as my "disposal" of the AF-S 200mm f2 VR and the AF-S 200-400mm f4 VR.

Here's the link to the updated version of my "Stuff I Use - Lenses" page:

• Stuff I Use - Part II: Lenses & Teleconverters (Updated).

More updates coming over the next week or so.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

5 February 2014: Minor Update to AF-S 80-400mm VR Field Test

I made a very minor update to my field test of the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR this morning - I added a sample image that demonstrates the performance of the AF system of the 80-400 when paired up with the D800e (it's in section I-7).

Here's the link to the updated field test:

• Field Tests: The Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR (Updated).

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

4 February 2014: Minor Update to TC-20EIII (2x) Teleconverter Review

I made a very minor update to my field test of the TC-20EIII (2x teleconverter) today - I added in the performance (and my subjective usability rating) for the TC-20EIII when paired with the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR. In doing so I had to add in a new usability rating on my scale. The new rating is "Non-existent"! There are MANY good reasons to purchase the "new" 80-400mm VR, but performance with the 2x teleconverter isn't one of them!

Here's the link to the updated TC-20EIII Field Test

• Field Tests: Nikon's Series III Teleconverters (Updated).

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

2 February 2014: "4 Ways to 400mm" Review Updated...

Way back in April of 2010 I produced a field test called "4 Ways to 400mm" that has proven to be exceptionally popular. Four years later and that page is still receiving around 1,000 unique visitors per month. The only problem is that it is out-of-date - in the last year or so Nikon has provided two NEW ways to get to 400mm in a way that's affordable to many users. These ways are through using the excellent new AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR or pairing the equally excellent 70-200mm f4 VR up with the 2x TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter.

How do these two new means of getting to 400mm stack up against the 4 ways I discussed way back in 2010? Check out the updated article right here:

• Field Tests: 4 Ways to 400mm (Updated).

Looking for a meaningful way to thank me for all my unpaid work assisting wildlife photographers? Nope I'm NOT going to ask you to open your wallet and donate to me and my dogs. What I'd like best is for you to sign my petition to put an end to the inhumane use of killing neck snares against wolves as practiced by the BC Gov't. And you can do that right here:

• Stop the Use of Killing Neck Snares Against Wolves in British Columbia.

Thanks & Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

29 January 2014: Confusion About the Build Quality of the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR

Not surprisingly, my field test of the AF-S 80-400 is generating a lot of interest (over 13,000 views already!) and a lot of feedback via email. Most of the feedback has been very positive and several who own the lens have said that their experience matches the comments and overall tone of my review extremely closely. That's gratifying (and insert one "Phew!" here!).

But one area where there seems to be confusion is on the build quality of the lens, largely because of very conflicting comments/opinions about the build quality than can be found online. For instance, in my review I began the section on build quality with this statement:

"Those who own some of Nikon's "best-of-the-best" lenses, such as any of their super-telephotos or top notch FX zooms (e.g., the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII) will likely be disappointed in the look and feel and general build quality/feel of this lens in their hands. Simply put, if feels more "plasticky" and when the zoom is extended it seems almost "wobbly" and fragile..."

But go to the review of the lens on slrgear.com (here) and you'll find their "official" review says this:

"The build quality in the new Nikon 80-400mm lens is excellent with the barrel comprised of metal and high-quality plastic, all painted with Nikon's typical black stipple finish. The lens feels solid, wide and beefy in the hands."

And, to complicate matters further, here's an excerpt from an email I received from Eric in Japan just a few days back:

"Just a quick feedback on my side: I've been enjoying the 80-400 since I purchased it here in Japan last July. Yesterday it fell down 30-40 cm on soft floor: all the hood's and the lens' plastic thread was broken. Now hood very difficult to use and not fix. My point: good lens, but surprisingly weak for the price."

In the end, I stand by what I said - I think those who have experienced the superb build quality of Nikon's best lenses WILL be disappointed if they expect the 80-400 to be of same build quality as a (for example) 300mm f2.8 VR or even the 200-400mm f4 VR. The hood or other parts on ANY lens (or the lens itself) can break if dropped, but I DO suspect that the "best-of-the-best" lenses would hold up better to the abuse of being dropped than the 80-400 would. To date, my 80-400 has held up fine to heavy, rugged - but non-abusive - field use. Is the build quality of the 80-400 sufficient to please you? I can't answer that...

I have no doubt Nikon could have made this lens with absolutely top-notch build quality. I don't know the financial consequence of this (or how much heavier the lens would have ended up being), but here's something to ponder - would YOU be willing to fork our $2999 or even $3499 for the same lens but with "best-of-the-best" build quality? I probably would, but I suspect many wouldn't. Just food for thought...

Finally...how can I explain slrgear.com's comments about the "excellent" build quality of the 80-400? Don't ask me - ask them! ;-)

My full field test of the 80-400 can be found here:

• Field Tests: The Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

27 January 2014: AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR Field Test Complete!

This morning I finished off the last two sections on my AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR field test. The sections just put to bed include Part IIB (with the tongue-twisting title of "Optical Performance at Various Distances, Focal Lengths, and In Comparison to a Variety of Nikkor Lenses") and Part IV - the final conclusion.

My final word on this lens? For me - it's absolutely a keeper - and one I'll be using a lot.

Check the field test out here:

• Field Tests: The Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

25 January 2014: Late Cancellation Opens Up 1 Spot on Owls of Manitoba Photo Tour

A late cancellation has opened up one spot on my early March "Owls of Manitoba" photo tour. Those on the waiting list have been contacted and can't step in - so this opening is now officially up for grabs. Great Gray Owls are the "headline act" on this tour, with Northern Hawk-owls nipping at their heels in popularity. Other owls we have a good chance of encountering include Great Horned, Snowy, Barred, Eastern Screech-owl, Northern Saw-whet, and Short-eared.

All the details of the trip can be found right here on my Photo Tours page. Contact me at seminars@naturalart.ca for more info or to book your spot!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

24 January 2014: Update to My Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR Field Test

I've updated my field test on the AF-S 80-400mm by adding information on the optical performance under controlled field shooting. The new information includes comments on overall optical performance, edge-to-edge sharpness and more through to performance with teleconverters. Check it out right here: Field Tests: The Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

23 January 2014: Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR Field Test

Finally - my field test of the "new" AF-S version of the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR is almost done. And, it's far enough along that I've gone ahead and posted it (right here: Field Tests: The Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR).

What remains to be added to the review? A small section in the middle called "Optical Performance Under Controlled Field Shooting"! But don't worry - no bad surprises coming in that section...I'm just finishing writing it up and processing a few test shots and I hope to have it online in a few days. While there will be lots of interesting tidbits in this section, the summary of the optical performance will read something like this: "The optical performance of the AF-S (i.e., updated) version of the lens is far superior ot the original version. While you can find a sharper lens for virtually all the focal lengths offered by the 80-400, you won't find many options that are MUCH sharper. And, most importantly for many, the lens is as sharp as the venerable 200-400mm f4 VR at all overlapping focal lengths (at all distances)."

Many will only have the time (or the energy) to read the "Executive Summary" - so...for their convenience...here it is:

My Executive Summary of the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR:

The AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR is a significant and worthwhile upgrade from its predecessor. It's an incredibly versatile lens that will meet most of the needs for many, many nature and wildlife photographers. The build quality doesn't match Nikon's best and most expensive lenses, but for most uses it's simply good enough - and it stood up to a full field season of rugged field use with nary a problem. The autofocus system proved to be accurate and fast enough to capture any action - from birds-in-flight through to running mammals. The Vibration Reduction technology permitted me to effectively hand-hold the lens at manageable "real-world" shutter speeds (1/focal length and often slower) for all focal lengths. Optical quality? While one can find a Nikon lens that's sharper at virtually every focal length, this is a solid performer over its entire focal range and it produces images sharp enough to please most any user. Image sharpness was comparable to the almost legendary 200-400mm f4 VR at all overlapping focal lengths. The size and weight of the lens makes it extremely portable - whether in a backpack, waist-mounted holster system, or in your carry-on luggage on a plane. Taken as a whole, and for almost any nature or wildlife photographer, this is as close to a "must-have" lens as you can get.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

14 January 2014: Announcing: 2015 Photo Tours!

For those who've been waiting and/or emailed me about the details of my 2015 Photo Tours - I just posted them on the Photo Tours page of this website. You can jump directly to the 2015 listings by following this link. Two further notes:

1. When will I begin accepting registrations? Immediately - and on a first-come, first-served basis.

2. Is this ALL my photo tours for 2015? Very likely NOT - I am working on putting together at minimum of two additional tours (and I will post details as soon as I have them).

Historically my two fastest selling tours have been my spring "Grizzlies of the Khutzeymateen" tours and my autumn "Into the Great Bear Rainforest" tours - so if you're hoping to participate in one of those trips it's probably best to contact me in the near future.

Anyone looking for more information than what is found on my Photo Tours page should contact me at seminars@naturalart.ca.

Cheers...

Brad

13 January 2014: The Return of Lysenkoism - In Canada!

I'm going to attempt to keep the bulk of my blog entries in 2014 directly relevant to photography, but sometimes ya just gotta speak out. This is one of those times.

Way back when I was in graduate school (and trust me, that's WAY back!), I took a course entitled "The Philosophy of Science". I just loved the course. Anyway...during that course we talked extensively about Lysenkoism which, for those who don't know, refers to an era (the 1920's through to the 1960's) when, in the Soviet Bloc, the scientific process and scientific thinking (specifically in the field of evolutionary inheritance and good oid fashioned Mendelian genetics) was manipulated and distorted to conform to Soviet ideology (at its most basic, the Darwinian concept of "survival of the fittest" didn't fit well with communist theory). At its worst Lysenkoism resulted in the execution of many biologists and the starvation of millions as Trofim Lysenko's "politically correct" but utterly fallacious genetic principles were enacted and impacted extremely negatively on Soviet agricultural practices. Those interested in this deadly perversion of science can read a nice overview about it right here...

I wrote a paper on the subject and distinctly recall thinking how stupid it was, and how it could obviously never happen in this day and age. Fast forward to the present. Fast forward to a Canadian Government that is doing its utmost to squelch scientists who publish - or even say - ANYTHING that may conflict with their goal of ravaging and exploiting the natural resources Canada in the quickest manner possible (regardless of the environmental cost). Fast forward to a government who has fired over 2,000 federal scientists who were producing inconvenient truths. Fast forward to a government who is focused on having its ideology manipulate, distort, and even crush the scientific process and independent thought.

Why is this appearing in a blog focused mainly on wildlife photography? Well...if the current plundering of science, knowledge, and Canada's unmatched wilderness areas goes unchecked, before long there will be no areas left in Canada that one could even hope to call pristine. And, before long, nowhere where we can partake in true wildlife photography.

I strongly urge anyone - regardless of where you are from - who cares about the integrity of the science and the state of Canada's wild places to view the following full-length special that appeared on CBC's Fifth Edition on January 10, 2014:

• The Silence of the Labs.

My thanks are extended to the CBC for having the courage to produce and broadcast this chilling special. Among other things, the current Harper/Tea Party Government of Canada is certainly trying to shutdown the CBC.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

9 January 2014: Back to the Future: NPN Wildlife Gallery Moderator (Again!)

Some of you may know that for a number of years I was one of (or, at times, the only) moderator of the Wildlife Gallery on The Nature Photographer's Network (or NPN). And, some of you may even know that about a year ago I resigned from that role - largely to have more time to invest in some conservation issues. Well - as of January 5 I stepped back into the role of Wildlife Gallery moderator (along with two other excellent wildlife photographers - Lon Sharp and Gary Gulash). If you have the time, you should check out NPN's Wildlife Gallery - in there you'll always find interesting wildlife shots, and often you'll find some simply GREAT shots! The photographers that participate vary from novice through to seasoned professional.

Why do I support NPN so strongly? Well, to begin with, there's the obvious (but very real) reasons - it's one of the absolute best "deals" out there for a nature photographer. It's a welcoming and friendly online community and a fantastic vehicle for learning the nuances of nature photography from some amazing photographers.

And there's one more reason - one that's critically important to me. NPN, and in particular the NPN Wildlife Gallery, has taken a strong stance AGAINST the baiting of wildlife. In the Wildlife Gallery there is a plain and simple rule: images of baited animals are prohibited. Period. This policy is as strong as it gets against baiting. And, it is a whole lot stronger than the rules you'll find in many (most) wildlife photography competitions, including even the renowned Natural History Museum/BBC's "Wildlife Photographer of the Year" competition, which specifically prohibits only the use of live bait (view their entry rules here) - implying that use non-live bait is totally acceptable. You'll see me enter the Natural History Museum/BBC's "Wildlife Photographer of the Year" competition when they ban all use of baiting, and not before.

What is so bad about baiting wildlife for the purposes of photography? To make a long story short, I firmly believe that wildlife photographers should always conform to one over-riding ethical principle:

A wildlife photographer should not intentionally engage in ANY activity known to harm their subject(s).

I find it hard to believe that ANY wildlife photographer will OPENLY disagree with this ethical foundation.

Now...there is ample documentation (I daresay "the preponderance of the evidence") clearly indicating that in almost all cases the supplemental feeding of wildlife is harmful, including even the regular feeding of songbirds (those who don't believe this can email me and I will provide some source references for you to start with). There is a reason that feeding wildlife is illegal in many places. The harmful effects include (but are not limited to) obvious issues like digestive problems and physiological problems (salt balance issues, malnutrition, etc., all the way up to the problem of death) caused by providing inappropriate food to the animals. But they also include less visible problems, such as an impact on spacing behaviour (e.g., collapsing individual or flock territories and thus increasing social strife) to the point where breeding success is inhibited. In the case of mammalian carnivores, the big, big problem is the speed with which they form food associations with humans if they receive supplemental food (including through baiting), and those food associations almost always result in the death of the carnivore. Yep, a fed bear (or wolf, or cougar, or...) IS a dead bear. Is it possible to find a single instance where baiting and/or supplemental feeding isn't harmful to the subject? Sure. But, odds are, if you dig deep enough, almost all instances of wildlife feeding are detrimental to the subject. The best policy? If you can figure out no way to photograph it without baiting it, go photograph something else.

Why does baiting persist? I can think of at least two reasons. First, there are photographers who are unaware of its harmful effects. Photo competitions and magazines that don't prohibit baiting contribute to this feeling of baiting being acceptable (and harmless). Hopefully there are fewer photographers who are unaware of the harmful effects of baiting now. Second, and sadly, there are some who know it is harmful but know it works. And their images are more important to them then their subjects are. And they're willing to bait and even cover it up. I lump this group in with athletes who cheat using performance-enhancing drugs...hmmm...that gives me an idea for a thought-provoking and effective title to an essay..."Baiting - The Wildlife Photographer's Steroids". Hmmm...

Did NPN's aggressive stance cost them any paying members? I am not in charge of membership, but I did notice that certain photographers abruptly ceased posting images in the Wildlife Gallery immediately after the rule was implemented. But NPN stuck to the rule, even if it hit them in the pocketbook. And, for me, because they put the ethics of wildlife photography AHEAD of the profit of wildlife photography I believe they are very worthy of my support. NPN - good on ya'!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

7 January 2014: Nikon Press Release: Announcing a Pending Announcement...

Yesterday Nikon issued made a surprising announcement that contained several critical details that ardent Nikon-o-philes probably had no clue about:

• There WILL be a successor to the D4 flagship DSLR (which, apparently, is now a HD-DSLR).
• Quite shockingly, that successor will be known as the D4s.
• Sometime in the future it WILL be announced, and...
• there WILL be a time when specs, availability, and price will be disclosed.

Of course, the new camera will be better - largely because better things and more goodness factors have been added to it. Those craving more details are encouraged to close their eyes and then vigorously rub them.

And - also of course - with details like this I'm just dying to get my hands on this incredible new machine. One can only imagine the amazing and often stunning things that can be done with this exciting new imaging tool.

And, one can only hope that all versions of the press release used for this ground-shaking announcement were electronic (and not a single sheet of paper was wasted on this inane exercise).

Sheesh.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

2 January 2014: All I want from Nikon in 2014...

What - in a perfect dream world - would I want Nikon to deliver to us in 2014? Funny enough, it's EXACTLY what I wanted them to deliver in January of 2013!

As we begin 2014 even the most cynical of Nikon-o-philes would have to admit that Nikon currently has a pretty solid product lineup for the serious (and professional) nature photographer. The incomparable D4 (sorry Canon 1D X users - your camera is very good, but it's not a D4!). The two kings of resolution - the D800 and D800e. The amazingly versatile and affordable D600 and its tweaked successor - the D610. And a great overall lineup of lenses.

When I stop and think about my personal "in-a-perfect-world" list I can really only come up with TWO products I really would like (I won't even dare to use the word "need") for my own uses - and would absolutely love Nikon to introduce in 2014:

1. A NEW 300mm f4 Prime Lens - with VR:

The more I test and use two of Nikon's newer lenses - the excellent 70-200mm f4 VR lens and the incredibly useful and versatile 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR - the more I want Nikon to update the existing AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED lens. Make it a G lens. Give it a pro build quality. Update the optics to meet the demands of ALL the FX bodies. Make it teleconverter-friendly. And, most importantly, add VR to it - preferably the same VR as on the new 70-200mm f4 VR with up to 5 stops of stabilization and both Normal and Active modes. Don't scrimp on this lens - go for quality, not a price point. And, even if you charged $2,000 or slightly more, you'd sell a gadzillion of them. And make me (and thousands of other shooters) very, very happy.

What do I think the chances of this happening are? Well, exactly ONE year ago I said this:

"Actually...pretty good. It's just so logical...and the current 300mm f4 is REALLY long-in-the-tooth. Fingers crossed on this one!"

And, of course, it didn't happen. So, one year later what do I think? Well - pretty much the same thing - I think it IS likely we'll see this lens - sometime in the future. And I hope to heck I'm not forced to say the same thing 12 months from now!

2. A PRO LEVEL DX Body:

I'm not going to be too hard to please on this one. Give us a DX body with a D700/D800 (Japanese) build quality. Make it relatively compact and with an optional battery grip (that increases its frame rate from 5 fps to 8 or 9 fps). 16-18 MP. D800 level autofocus system. Video? I don't care. Price it at $2k (or even $2500). Call it anything you want - a D400, a D500...whatever. And Nikon would sell tons of them (and cause even more Canon users to make the switch). All without doing any significant parasitizing of the sales of any of the FX bodies.

And what do I think the chances are of Nikon giving us this pro-quality DX camera? A year ago I said this:

"Close to zero. Nikon seems to have decided that the DX format is for entry level, and that all serious users want full-frame. Tons of sports and wildlife shooters disagree...but this is what Nikon apparently thinks. Sigh..."

So what are the chances NOW (a full year later)? Well...given that 2013 saw the introduction of two "non-pro" DX cameras (the D7100 and the D5300), I'd have to say that the chances are even CLOSER to zero (than ever) that we'll see a pro-level DX camera (in 2014, or EVER!).

Anything else I'd like to see Nikon introduce or update in 2014? Well...if I was really pressed I could come up with some other "would-be-nice-to-have" new things from Nikon - maybe like a 400mm f4 VR lens...or an updated 24-70mm f2.8 zoom with a VR on it. But...even if I get only that 300mm f4 VR...well...I'll be happy!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

1 January 2014: HNY - And NPN's Gallery of the Month for December!

First off...to all the visitors of this website - Happy New Year! I sincerely hope that 2014 brings you good light, good subjects, and good times!

Second...a minor announcement. Each month the editor of The Nature Photographer's Network (NPN) chooses a "Gallery of the Month" from among all the NPN members' image galleries. The galleries themselves are automatically generated by any member that posts images in any of the critiquing galleries that are the centrepiece of NPN. In time, members who regularly post images there end up with a sizeable collection of work in their galleries. For instance, I post on NPN about once per week (often with the same image that goes into my Gallery of Latest Additions on this website for that week). My gallery on NPN now consists of 184 images.

Anyway...I found out just a few days back that my gallery on NPN has been chosen as the Gallery of the Month for December 2013! This unexpected bit of recognition was one of those "Oh...I didn't even know I was entered in that" kind of things that more or less came out of the blue - which in some respects makes it even nicer than "winning" something you had knowledge you were competing in!

You can view the "Gallery of the Galleries of the Month" on NPN (i.e., a listing of ALL winning galleries of the month since May 2011) right here. This "gallery of galleries" leads to some pretty impressive images of encompassing numerous nature photography genres (e.g., landscape photography, macro photography, wildlife photography, etc.), so if you have time it's really worth checking out.

To directly enter MY gallery of images on NPN, just go here.

As an aside, I personally consider NPN membership and participation to be one of the absolute best "deals" out there for a nature photographer. It's a welcoming and friendly online community and a fantastic vehicle for learning the nuances of nature photography. I know that many of the regular visitors to this website also regularly visit NPN, either as members or non-member "lurkers". If you're an aspiring (or accomplished) nature photographer and haven't visited NPN, you should check it out!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

II. Selected 2013/2012 Gear-related Blog Entries

As always, all blog entries from any given calendar year are available in my blog archives. For instance, all blog entries for 2013 may be found here...

For convenience, I have retained and collected some of the more popular 2013 (and even late 2012) gear-related entries immediately below (i.e., have extracted and placed all entries for a specific piece of gear together, beginning with all entries for the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR). I acknowledge that the "chronologically-backwards" (newest to oldest) order of the entries some may find this information a little tricky to follow - but there's lots of valuable tidbits here and this listing IS easier than going to the blog archives and hunting down the information.

Here are some links to help you get to the various sections quickly:

A. Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR
B. The Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 Zoom
C. The Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR
D. Ramblings on Miscellaneous Bits of Gear!

A. Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR

23 December 2013: Whatcha Been Doing? My 80-400mm VR Field Test, That's What!

In recent days I've received an email or two asking me what I've been up to (possibly implying that I've been a bit 'lax' in website updates). The answer? Two things. First, I've been updating a lot of the image galleries on this website - things like building the new Animalscapes & Enviroscapes Gallery, adding images to both the Bear Gallery and the Other Mammals Gallery, et cetera!

Second, I've been putting the finishing touches on my AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR final Field Test write-up. Yes, I've taken my time pushing the review out, simply because I wanted to thoroughly test this lens over an extended period and in a wide variety of situations before offering my 'final' opinion on it. I've shot with the lens all over Canada's west coast, in the Rockies, and up in the Arctic - got it wet (don't tell Nikon), bumped it around, and generally shot with it in almost every way a nature photographer could. And, I tested the lens against a LOT of other lenses - the 400mm f2.8 VR, the 200-400mm f4 VR, the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII and the 70-200mm f4 VR (both without and without teleconverters), and the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR. So shortly - hopefully before the New Year - you'll get a review that's a whole lot more than a spec-spew or the results of shooting with the lens for a week or so!

For those who impatient types absolutely need to know what I think about the lens right NOW, here's two things that should help you out a little:

1. My ONE Sentence Summary of the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR:

Its excellent optical quality, wide focal range, relatively small size and light weight, and non-astronomical price tag combine to make the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR one of the most versatile and valuable lenses that a nature photographer of ANY level could own.

2. A Field Guide to My Blog Posts on the 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 VR:

I began commenting on and then testing the 80-400mm VR way back in 9 March 2013. I produced a number of running commentaries reporting my experiences with the lens here on this blog but - given the nature of the beast - hunting for and then reading each entry is much more painful than reading a single field test. But...having a field guide linking those blog entries together can help a little...so for the impatient types...here ya go:

• 9 March 2013: Preliminary Thoughts on the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR. Written before it was in my hands...

• 9 May 2013: Very First Impressions. Some early practical considerations (including my criticism of the lens hood and the useless tripod collar) and very early experiences on how the lens performs, including the performance of the AF system.

• 13 May 2013: Up Close and Personal Part 1. Head-to-head comparison of the performance of the 80-400 against both the 200-400mm f4 VR and the 400mm f2.8 VR (at 400mm ONLY) at a distance of about 4.9m (16'). The kind of distance you'd often use the lens at when photographing things like small mammals or small birds.

• 15 May 2013: Up Close and Personal Part 2. As immediately above, but add in two 70-200mm lenses (the f2.8 VRII and the "new" f4 VR) - both with and without TC's. And in this case I compared many more focal lengths: 400mm, 360mm, 300mm, 200mm, 135mm, and 80mm.

• 23 May 2013: Moving Back - Part 1. A large array of head-to-head comparisons of lens performance at a distance of 38m (about 125') - the type of distance one often is at when shooting large mammals like deer, elk, bears, etc. And in this case I compared 5 lenses (80-400mm VR, 200-400mm f4 VR, 400mm f2.8 VR, 70-200mm f4 VR, 70-200mm f2.8 VRIi - these last two with and without TC's) at the following focal lengths: 400mm, 360mm, 300mm, 200mm, 135mm, and 80mm.

• 19 June 2013: Moving Back - Part 2. As immediately above, but now lenses compared at a distance-to-subject of 80m (about 262'). And, I added the economical 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR to the mix of lenses tested.

• 16 July 2013: Moving Back - Part 3. As immediately above, but now lenses compared at a distance-to-subject of about a kilometer (just under 1100 yards).

• 18 July 2013: Performance with Teleconverters. How the 80-400mm VR performs with the TC-14EII (1.4x) and TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverters.

There...that ought to keep you busy until I can get the final review written up!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

18 July 2013: The AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR - Performance with Teleconverters

So...how does the updated 80-400mm VR perform when it is combined with Nikon teleconverters? In the not-too-distant past virtually all Nikon telephoto zooms performed only moderately well (some, including me, would say "poorly) when combined with teleconverters. However...with at least some recent lens releases (e.g., the new 70-200mm f4 VR) Nikon seems to have put more emphasis during the design process on how the lens performs with teleconverters. Which is a good thing. And, for me at least, it justified the effort in testing the lens with teleconverters (rather than just discarding the idea of combining this lens with any TC).

NOTE: I no longer own - and don't care to own - Nikon's TC-17EII (1.7x) teleconverter and do not have easy access to one. This entry is based on tests performed only with the TC-14EII (1.4x) and TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverters.

1. Performance of the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR with the TC-14EII (1.4x) teleconverter.

A. What I Did: I performed two sets of tests of the 80-400mm VR paired with Nikon's 1.4x teleconverter and using a Nikon D600 body. Note that in both sets of test I chose to use one focal length only - 400mm. This was done simply because I assumed that most folks using a TC are using it to extend the maximum range of the zoom - it makes little sense to use a TC on a 80-400mm lens when it is zoomed to 200mm!

In the first set of tests I photographed a static object (my good old stump) at one fixed distance with the following combinations of gear: 80-400mm VR native (no TC), 80-400mm VR with 1.4x TC, 400mm f2.8 VR native, 400mm f2.8 VR with 1.4x TC. Images were captured using a firm tripled and using Live View with cable release. VR's were turned off. During this set of tests the ISO was fixed at 100. Images were captured in 1/3 stop increments from "wide open" through to two stops smaller than wide open, and then were captured in one full stop increments after that. This test was performed to reveal any "penalties" associated with the use of the TC (in terms of image sharpness) and to assess how much I needed to stop down (with the TC attached) to attain maximum sharpness. The 400mm f2.8 was included simply as a baseline to compare against.

The second set of tests had more real-world relevance to me (as a wildlife photographer). Again I shot from a tripod, but this time with the head loose and using the optical viewfinder. And I triggered the camera using just the shutter release. And my subjects were now birds, chipmunks, and squirrels. In this case I worked as I would in the field - with VR's ON (the head was loose on the tripod) and using Auto ISO (to ensure image sharpness when working with fast-moving subjects). Again, I varied apertures systematically.

B. What I Found: The results of both sets of tests were consistent: Overall I was quite impressed with the performance of the 80-400mm plus 1.4x TC - the images were surprisingly (to me) sharp. I found I had to stop down one full stop from wide open (so to f11) before I attained maximum sharpness - when shot wide open the shots were decidedly soft (which is almost always the case when one uses a TC on any Nikon lens). While I would be leery of shooting this lens/TC combo hand-held (remember, we're talking f11 to get to maximum sharpness), if one has time to set up on a tripod, this is a viable 550mm option (assuming you have a lot of light or a VERY still subject!!).

Here's a series of shots (f8 thru f16) for you to examine for yourself to see if this is the kind of performance that would work for you. They're of a chipmunk that was kind enough to sit in one place long enough for me to take a sequence of shots at different apertures. The shots are close to full frame and have been cut in resolution down to 2400 pixels across (at this size true differences in sharpness are still visible):

• Chipmunk @ f8 (wide open aperture): Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.4 MB)

• Chipmunk @ f11: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.4 MB)

• Chipmunk @ f13: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.5 MB)

• Chipmunk @ f16: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.5 MB)

2. Performance of the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR with the TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter.

A. What I Did: Exactly as above, but this time using a 2x TC.

B. What I Found: When performing the first set of tests (using Live View) my results paralleled what I found when using the 1.4x TC - pretty darned good optical performance. As before, I had to stop down one full stop to get to maximum sharpness - so in this case I had to stop down to f16. But...I won't bother showing you the results. Why? Read on...

When I started the second set of tests (photographing actual animals using optical viewfinder, standard shutter release, etc.) I quickly discovered my D600 would NOT focus with the teleconverter attached. Before thinking, I switched to a D800 (it has a more sophisticated and better AF system) and found the same thing. Wouldn't focus. Then I tried my D4. Still wouldn't focus. Then a lightbulb went on (slowly) in my head - right...even Nikon's best AF systems require an aperture of f8 or larger to work. Largest aperture with 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR at 400mm combined with 2x TC = f11. Duhhh.

After trying to photograph fast-moving small mammals and birds (that require pin-point positioning of of the AF brackets) using Live View for about 30 seconds - it took me that long to realize that was a totally fruitless exercise - I came to the conclusion that using the 2x TC with the 80-400 wasn't really a viable option for me. Would others find it useful? Possibly - as long as they are prepared to use Live View and stop down to f16 (as a start point!). But that doesn't work for me.

3. Use a Teleconverter or Upsize During Post-processing?

Time to throw a wrench into the works. A few years back I experimented with upsizing images (in Photoshop) and comparing the results to images shot with the same lens but with a teleconverter (1.4x) attached. Long story short - regardless of how I upsized the images (step-wise, varying the algorithm, using third party products like Genuine Fractals, etc.) the images shot with the teleconverters were sharper.

Fast forward to 2013 - and Adobe announces Photoshop CC. One of its headline new features is a new up-sizing algorithm called "Preserve Details (Enlargement)". According to Adobe, this new upsampling method allows you to:

"Enlarge a low-res image so it looks great in print, or start with a larger image and blow it up to poster or billboard size. New upsampling preserves detail and sharpness without introducing noise."

Does it work as claimed? Sigh...time to experiment (again!). Long story short...I have found that I can now get sharper images by upsizing an image shot without a TC to the exact image size that would be produced by adding a TC to the lens in question. And, contrast is better (besides slightly reducing sharpness, TC's also reduce contrast of an image). The downside - when you upsize an image you do not reduce the Depth of Field (DoF) of a lens - so if you're looking to use a TC to better isolate a subject from the background via using selective focus and a thin DoF, you won't do it with upsizing.

Confused? Just check out this example:

• Teleconverter or Digital Upsizing? Download Image Comparison (JPEG: 618 KB)

4. Take Home Lessons? Will I start to shoot the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR with a TC? Likely not, but that's largely because I'm fortunate enough to own a 400mm f2.8 VR (and a 600mm f4 VR) and the 400 prime does produce better results when paired with a TC than the 80-400 zoom does (the 400mm f2.8 VR pairs better with TC's than almost any Nikon lens). And, to effectively use the 80-400mm VR with the 1.4x TC you pretty much have to be carrying a tripod. And, if I'm carrying a tripod, odds are I'm carrying my 400mm f2.8 VR. BUT...in a pinch it's nice to know that I COULD use the 80-400mm VR with the 1.4x TC and get acceptable results. Or...I could just upsize the shots in Photoshop CC! ;-)

That's it - I'm done testing the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR zoom. All I have to do now is write up my "formal" review - which I'll do as soon as possible. I'll tell you right now that I think this lens is a HUGE upgrade from its predecessor and that it will make many nature photographers quite happy. I'm keeping my test copy - and I will use it in the field (a lot). And...I know this lens - along with my blog entries on it - is already resulting in more than a few photographers placing their 200-400mm f4's up on eBay. If I still owned a 200-400 myself that's what I would do (there you go Dave F. from FL - the answer to your question!). The negatives of the 80-400mm VR? The biggest is the next-to-useless tripod collar...so, so wimpy. But that can be replaced with a 3rd party version that works better (e.g. one from Really Right Stuff) AND I suspect many or most users will be hand-holding this lens a lot (and, on the positive side, that useless tripod collar comes off real easy!).

What's up next? It's a surprise...but I have been field-testing some more Nikon goodies. Stay tuned!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

16 July 2013: The AF-S 80-400mmm f4.5-5.6 VR - Moving Back Part 3: @ 1 Kilometer

Yes, I'm being anal in testing the heck out of the "new" AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR zoom. Why? Mostly because I want to assure myself how it performs - when I should use it, when I shouldn't and - when I AM using it - how I can squeeze the most quality out of it? I'm also aware that a LOT of nature photographers will be considering purchasing this lens, and it will be helpful for them to know exactly how it has performed for me (and thus how it might perform for them).

This go 'round I compared the performance of the 80-400 with 5 other "solutions" to getting to the same focal ranges it offers (i.e., 80-400 mm), but this time over an even longer distance - about 1 kilometer (0.62 miles - or 1093 yards - or 3280 feet). The rationale for testing this lens over so many different camera-to-subject distances is that others have pointed out how some lenses (e.g., the popular 200-400mm f4 VR) preform well close-up but seem "soft" or "weak" at "longer" distances. While I realize this is a digression - I have to say that after all my "variable-distance" testing I am beginning to believe that this "good up close but poor-at-distance" claim about the 200-400mm f4 is a huge exaggeration and blown completely out of proportion in its seriousness (and the person - who shall remain nameless here - who first wrote about this "problem" did a LOT of 200-400mm f4 VR lens owners and prospective buyers a huge disservice). But I digress...

A. What I Did: I tested the following lenses for sharpness: 400mm f2.8 VRII, 200-400mm f4 VR, 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR, 70-200mm f2.8VRII, 70-200mm f4 VR (the two 70-200mm lenses were tested both with and without the 2x TC-20EIII attached, depending on the focal length being examined), and the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR. I tested at the following focal lengths: 400mm, 360mm, 300mm, 200mm, 135mm, 80mm. I tested apertures from "wide open" through to f16 (but I only report the results below up to f11, as during most field shooting with a lens like this one only rarely stops down past f11). Over the first two stops from "wide open" I shot images at 1/3 stop increments. At smaller apertures (i.e., more than 2 stops away from "wide open") I shot images at 1 stop aperture increments. All images were using a Nikon D600 body and shot from a firm tripod, using Live View and a cable release. All images were shot at a distance of approximately 1 kilometer (or about 0.62 miles or 1093 yards or 3280 feet) from the subject. VR was shut off on all of the lenses (though other testing has shown that with SOME of these lenses the VR can be left on without impacting negatively on image quality). I examined and scrutinized all the images at full-resolution and 100% magnification (1:1).

To help readers get a handle on the type of sharpness differences I'm reporting on, I've produced one composite image that shows a 750x500 pixel crop from the central portion of sample images using the various lenses. I chose 400mm as the focal length for the composite image. Of course, as always it's best to view it at 100% magnification (1:1) to assess sharpness differences. Here's the composite image:

• 5 Ways to 400mm @ 1 Km: Download Sample Comparison image (JPEG: 1.3 MB)

B. What I Found: A whole lot of similarity to what I found at camera-to-subject distances of 40m and 80m. Meaning, at most focal lengths and most apertures the 80-400mm and 200-400mm zooms were very hard to tell apart in sharpness. Which is an impressive result for the dramatically lower-priced 80-400mm VR. How about the 70-200's with the TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverters (at focal lengths over 200mm)? The 70-200mm f4 VR (and, in this case, plus TC) continues to impress - it produced noticeably better output than the 70-200mm f2.8 VR plus 2x TC at most focal lengths and apertures. What about at focal lengths of 200mm and less (when the TC comes off the two 70-200's)? Well, at 200mm and below you're slightly better off shooting either of the 70-200's (and particularly the f4 version) than the 80-400mm. What about that 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR "consumer" lens? As I found at an 80m camera-to-subject distance it did unexpectedly well. Between 201mm and 300mm you're better off shooting it than either of the 70-200mm's with the 2x TC. And below 200mm you're slightly better off shooting it than the 80-400mm VR. And, when shooting under 200mm in focal length the 70-300 is quite close in sharpness to either the 70-200mm f4 VR or the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII.

And, for those concerned with the nitty-gritty specifics, here's exactly what I found at each focal length tested.

1. At 400mm? At every aperture tested the 400mm f2.8 VRII was noticeably/visibly sharper than ANY of the other lenses. As I found at the 80m distance, the 80-400mm VR was neck-and-neck in sharpness with the 200-400mm VR at all apertures EXCEPT f5.6 (where the 80-400mm is wide open). By f6.3 the two lenses produced virtually identical output, and it stayed that way all the way up to f16.

What about the shorter zooms plus TC's? Neither 70-200mm plus 2x TC matched the 200-400mm or the 80-400mm in sharpness (at any aperture). And, as I found at shorter distances, the 70-200mm f4 VR plus 2x TC outperformed the 70-200mm f2,8 VRII plus 2x TC at all apertures they could be compared at (f8 and smaller). By how much? Check out the comparison image linked to above to see for yourself.

2. At 360mm? Similar results as at 400mm. The 200-400mm and 80-400mm were virtually indistinguishable at all apertures EXCEPT f5.6 (80-400 wide open at f5.6), where the 200-400mm was noticeably sharper. The 70-200mm f4 plus 2x TC ranked third in sharpness (and was visibly softer than either of the "bigger" zooms). And the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII plus 2x TC came in last and was noticeably softer than any of the other lenses. For perspective, the only result at this focal length that I would personally consider unusable was the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII plus 2x TC when shot wide open (so at f5.6) - there's really no diplomatic way to accurately describe the result - it was simply very bad.

3. At 300mm? Now the issue is slightly complicated by the inclusion of the "consumer" 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR. But overall the picture isn't too complicated - the 200-400mm and the 80-400mm run neck-and-neck for first place in sharpness (at all apertures except f5.6 where the 200-400 is sharper), the 70-300mm is next (noticeably less sharp, but still quite sharp), followed by the 70-200mm f4 plus 2x TC, and...bringing up the rear once more...the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII plus 2x TC.

4. At 200mm? And now the TC's have come off! And, separating out which images were sharpest at all focal lengths at 200mm and below was far more challenging - the total range of sharpness difference decreased signficantly. So...I'm beginning to split hairs somewhat.

Anyway...to be brief, the two 70-200's now run neck-and-neck as the sharpest choice (e.g., at f4 the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII was slightly sharper than the 70-200mm f4 VR, but at f5.6 and f8 the opposite was true). Who's in third place? Surprisingly, the 70-300mm. Fourth? The 80-400mm. And the softest option (but still quite sharp) was the 200-400mm f4.

5. At 135mm? Now the 200-400 is out of the mix. And the two 70-200's are, to my eyes, virtually indistinguishable (and the sharpest of the lot). And the 70-300 and the 80-400 are almost indistinguishable from one another too - but both are slightly less sharp than the two 70-200's. Extreme pixel-peeping shows that the 80-400 is very slightly less sharp than the 70-300mm at this focal length, but the difference is so, so small as to be virtually insignificant.

6. At 80mm? An easy-to-describe result. The two 70-200's were tied for first. But now the 80-400 is next in sharpness, but only very, very slightly sharper than the 70-300. And it's important to realize that ALL shots were very sharp.

C. Take Home Lessons? What am I going to try to keep in mind from this test whenever I'm in the field shooting? First, if I'm going to shoot a very distant scene at 400mm and the success of the shot is based on maximum sharpness, then I should select my 400mm f2.8 VR. BUT, if "all" I have at my disposal is the 200-400mm f4 VR or the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR, I won't be penalized too much at all! If I'm shooting a distant scene that requires a focal length between 201mm and 399mm, then the best option of the lenses tested would be either the 200-400 OR the 80-400 (yes, if one owns a 300mm f2.8 VR and that's what the scene requires, it would be a better choice). What if I'm shooting a distant scene that requires a focal length of 200mm or less? Then I'll grab either the 70-200mm f4 VR OR the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII first (and because it's lighter and smaller and has a better VR, odds are my choice will be the 70-200mm f4 VR).

To date I have found no real weakness in optical performance in the new AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR - it's been very impressive and has definitely exceeded my expectations. What's left to test with it? Oh right...how does it perform with a teleconverter? Stay tuned...tests with both the TC-14EII (1.4x) and TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverters coming soon!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

19 June 2013: The AF-S 80-400mmm f4.5-5.6 VR - Moving Back Part 2: 80 Meters

As discussed in my blog entry of May 23 ("Moving Back: Part 1") there's good reason to examine a new lens's performance at various distances. Previously (May 23 blog entry) I tested and reported that the new AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR zoom lens performed very well at a distance of just under 40 meters. This time I moved back to a distance of 80 meters (about 262') and compared the performance of the 80-400mm zoom to several other lenses (both at a variety of focal lengths and a variety of apertures). This distance is the sort of distance a wildlife photographer might use to shoot an "animalscape" shot where the subject is shown within a (hopefully) beautiful scene. It's also the type of distance a parent might shoot his/her child playing soccer, hockey , football (or whatever!). This go round I added one more lens to the mix at focal lengths of 300mm and less - the Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR zoom (which many think of as a consumer lens, and is far less expensive than any other lens used in this comparison).

A. What I Did: I tested the following lenses for sharpness: 400mm f2.8 VRII, 200-400mm f4 VR, 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR, 70-200mm f2.8VRII, the 70-200mm f4 VR, and the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR (the two 70-200mm lenses were tested both with and without the 2x TC-20EIII attached, depending on the focal length being examined). I tested at the following focal lengths: 400mm, 360mm, 300mm, 200mm, 135mm, 80mm. I tested apertures from "wide open" through to f16 (but I only report the results below up to f11, as during most field shooting with a lens like this one only rarely stops down past f11). Over the first two stops from "wide open" I shot images at 1/3 stop increments. At smaller apertures (than 2 stops away from "wide open") I shot images at 1 stop aperture increments. All images were shot from a firm tripod, using Live View and a cable release. All images were shot at a distance of 80 meters (about 262') from the subject. VR was shut off on all of the lenses (though other testing has shown that with SOME of these lenses the VR can be left on without impacting negatively on image quality). I examined and scrutinized all the images at full-resolution and 100% magnification (1:1).

In recent days I've received emails asking me just how noticeable the differences I have been reporting in this battery of tests really are. To help answer this question, I've produced a composite image (for your downloading pleasure!) shot at 400mm using all the lenses (excepting, of course, the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR) which should give you a feel for the type of differences in sharpness I am talking about. This visual comparison is good in that it typifies the results I obtained at most focal lengths, i.e., that the 80-400mm zoom and 200-400mm zoom performed very similarly to one another and with the 70-200mm f4 plus TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter nipping at their heels. The 70-200mm f2.8 VR plus 2x TC didn't fare too well at this distance. Here's the sample comparison - best to view it at 100% magnification (1:1):

• 5 Ways to 400mm: Download Sample Comparison image (JPEG: 1.4 MB)

B. What I Found: To begin with, a lot of similarity to what I found at 40m. Meaning, at most focal lengths and most apertures the 80-400mm and 200-400mm zooms were pretty much neck-and-neck in optical performance. This says a LOT for the new 80-400mm lens. Are the results as sharp as you'd get out of the "best-of-the-best" primes at key focal lengths (like 400mm or 300mm or 200mm). No - of course not. But the difference in sharpness between those two zooms and the "big" primes aren't as big as some might expect (see the downloadable sample comparison at 400mm linked just above). It should be noted that you don't buy those big primes JUST for sharpness - the big apertures and quality of out-of-focus zones are important too. How do the 70-200's with the TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverters fare at focal lengths over 200mm? Well, the 70-200mm f4 VR (and, in this case, plus TC) continues to impress me - it produced better output than the 70-200mm f2.8 VR plus 2x TC at most focal lengths and apertures. What about at focal lengths of 200mm and less (when the TC comes off the two 70-200's)? Well, at 200mm and below you're slightly better off shooting either of the 70-200's (and particularly the f4 version) than the 80-400mm at those focal lengths. What about that 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR "consumer" lens? It did surprisingly well. Between 201mm and 300mm you're better off shooting it than either of the 70-200mm's with the 2x TC. And below 200mm you're better off shooting it than the 80-400mm VR. And, under 200mm it is darned close in sharpness to either the 70-200mm f4 VR or the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII.

If you want more specific results, here's exactly what I found:

1. At 400mm? At every aperture tested the 400mm f2.8 VRII was noticeably/visibly sharper than ANY of the other lenses (see that downloadable sample comparison above). While some have made a big deal about how the 200-400 "softens up" at longer camera-to-subject distances, I have found this to be the case only when compared to the outstanding 400mm f2.8 VR. Compared to lenses most real humans own (I can say this because I'm one of the rare birds who DOES own a 400mm f2.8 so I'm in the "non-real" human group too!) the 200-400mm does real well at any distance. But, most importantly to this test, the 80-400mm VR was neck-and-neck in sharpness with the 200-400mm VR at all apertures EXCEPT f5.6 (where the 80-400mm is wide open). By f6.3 the two lenses produced almost indistinguishable output, and it stayed that way all the way up to f16.

How did the shorter zooms plus TC stack up? Interestingly, the 70-200mm f4 plus TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter seemed to do better at this distance than at 40m. While the images shot with this zoom plus TC were softer than with either of the "bigger" zooms, they were pretty acceptable (especially if one applied careful sharpening to them). I can't say the same thing about the results with the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII plus teleconverter - at f5.6 the results were absolutely awful and they didn't get much better as one stopped down! That "new" 70-200mm f4 VR continues to impress me - and this is one more example of that.

2. At 360mm? Other than having only 4 lenses in the mix now, the results are pretty much the same as at 400mm. Meaning that the 80-400mm VR and the 200-400mm VR were almost indistinguishable (sharpness-wise) at all apertures ABOVE f5.6 (at f5.6 the 200-400 was slightly sharper). The 70-200mm f4 VR plus 2x TC wasn't far behind. And the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII plus 2x TC placed a distant 4th (and again was absolutely awful when shot wide open).

3. At 300mm? OK, this is getting boring - same overall result. BUT, at 300mm I was able to add the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR to the mix. How did it fare? Visibly less sharp than either the 80-400mm VR or the 200-400mm VR, but slightly sharper than the 70-200mm f4 VR plus 2x TC. And considerably sharper than the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII plus 2x TC. So, while not surprising, this is pretty good performance for such an inexpensive "consumer" lens.

4. At 200mm? At 200mm I compared the two "bigger" zooms (the 200-400mm VR and the 80-400mm VR) against the two 70-200's shot native, i.e., without the 2x TC. And, of course, the 70-300mm was shot native as well.

And, of course, taking the teleconverter off made a big difference to the performance of the two 70-200's. Up to f8 the 70-200mm f4 VR was the sharpest of the lot, with the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII placing second (with the difference between the two 70-200's being incredibly small - i.e., one had to look very, very closely to see any difference). In third place? The 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR. Really. And tied for fourth? The two big zooms (the 80-400 and the 200-400). By f11 I could NOT separate out any sharpness differences between the lenses. One point I have to make here - at 200mm the differences between the sharpest lens and the softest lens was really small - shoot ANY of these lenses (carefully) at 200mm and you would be happy with the results. The only lenses I know that would produce sharper results at 200mm are the 200mm f2 VR and the 200mm f4 Micro (based on past testing I have found the 200mm f4 Micro nipping at the heels of the legendary 200mm f2 VR in sharpness at all distances).

5. At 135mm? Now the 200-400 is out of the mix. Easy to describe the results at this distance. The 70-200mm f4 was sharper than all the others (by an infinitesimally small margin) and all the others were tied for second.

6. At 80mm?Another easy-to-describe result. The two 70-200's were tied for first, with the 80-400 and the 70-300 were JUST behind in a dead-heat for second place. All were very sharp.

C. Take Home Lessons? What am I going to try to keep in mind from this test whenever I'm in the field shooting? First, that if I need to shoot a subject at 400mm and at a reasonably long distance, my best choice is definitely my 400mm f2.8 VR (assuming I am carrying it - which isn't a "minor" assumption). Otherwise, I'll be giving up almost nothing (other than one f-stop) in selecting the 80-400mm VR over the 200-400mm VR. And the same holds true down to 200mm. Once I'm below 200mm my best lens choice would be the 70-200mm f4 VR, unless the light is so low that I'd need the extra speed of the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. And, to be honest, as an FX shooter I almost never need to go down to f2.8 due to lack of light (reasons of selecting a larger aperture than f4 to isolate a subject through use of a thin DoF is an entirely different matter, but may matter for some users). I guess for me the final lesson from this testing would be to avoid - at all costs - putting Nikon's 2x teleconverter on the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII when I'm working with a distant subject (but this just confirms what I have found before...and odds are I'd never put a TC on either 70-200 if I had any other option).

From a sharpness perspective the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 continues to impress me. Combine that with its great focal range and very "carry-able" size (what a great travel lens!) and it will surprise almost no one that I have already decided to keep this lens - it has definitely earned its spot in my backpack...

One important caveat about ALL the 80-400mm tests I've done to date. While almost everyone thinks sharpness first, there is more to optical performance than just sharpness. The quality of the out-of-focus zones (that good ol' bokeh) is very important too. To date I haven't been discussing this. But, if you examine the downloadable sample image above you can see the quality of the out-of-focus zones does differ between the lenses, even at a distance of 80 meters. Closer up and the differences in bokeh becomes even more apparent. In my opinion, this is where the 70-200's plus TC's really show their limitations - adding a TC on to a lens impacts MORE on the out-of-focus zones than it does on the sharpness. How does the 80-400 stack up in terms of bokeh? Pretty good. Not quite as good as the 200-400 (at close distances), and definitely not as good as the 400mm f2.8 VR. But given the outstanding "convenience" of this lens, I can live with the small but significant bokeh penalty in most day-to-day use.

Up next? Hopefully a comparison of the 80-400 and other lenses at VERY long distances (think distant scenes). But I'm off to north of the Arctic Circle next week (muskox anyone?), so I won't be able to report on this until shortly after my return on July 5.

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

23 May 2013: The AF-S 80-400mmm f4.5-5.6 VR - Moving Back: Part 1

One of the few criticisms of Nikon's 200-400mm f4 VR is that as one moves away from the subject it becomes a little softer (i.e., less sharp). For this reason, I'm testing the new 80-400mm VR against an array of other lenses at a number of distances. This excerpt looks at how the 80-400mm performs against a host of other lenses at a greater distance than the tests described below in previous entries. This time I chose a subject (another glamorous stump) at just under 40 meters (to be exact, 38 meters, or 125'). This is the type of distance many photographers would be photographing some larger subjects at, such as deer, elk, bears, wolves, etc. - so it has "relevance" in that regard.

A. What I Did: I tested the following lenses for sharpness: 400mm f2.8 VRII, 200-400mm f4 VR, 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR, 70-200mm f2.8VRII, and the 70-200mm f4 VR (the two 70-200mm lenses were tested both with and without the 2x TC-20EIII attached, depending on the focal length being examined). I tested at the following focal lengths: 400mm, 360mm, 300mm, 200mm, 135mm, 80mm. I tested apertures from "wide open" through to f16 (but I only report the results below up to f11, as during most field shooting with a lens like this one only rarely stops down past f11). Over the first two stops from "wide open" I shot images at 1/3 stop increments. At smaller apertures (than 2 stops away from "wide open") I shot images at 1 stop aperture increments. All images were shot from a firm tripod. Each lens/aperture/focal length combination was shot both using the optical viewfinder and VR in the appropriate mode when tripod mounted (and using appropriate "long lens technique") and using Live View with VR off (using a cable release). I examined and scrutinized all the images at full-resolution and 100% magnification (1:1).

B. What I Found: The broadest generalization of my results is that the new AF-S 80-400mm VR performed far better than I anticipated, especially in the 300-400mm focal length range - there it rivalled the 200-400mm VR in sharpness. In a sense, the 80-400mm VR and the 200-400mm VR "clustered together" in sharpness - meaning that at most focal lengths and apertures it was a toss-up as to which was sharper (and they were always very, very close). Similarly, when one paired the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII and the 70-200mm f4 VR with the TC-20EIII 2x teleconverter they performed quite similarly to one another, but were never as sharp as either the 80-400mm VR or the 200-400mm VR (again, when comparing overlapping focal lengths). One other result stuck out in all the tests with a greater than 200mm focal length (so when the 70-200mm zooms were paired with the TC-20EIII) - the absolute WORST results were always obtained with the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII plus TC-20EIII when shot wide open (so at f5.6). Just plain awful - you just can't shoot the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII with the 2x TC with the aperture wide open and expect to get decent results (interestingly, you CAN shoot the 70-200mm f4 VR plus 2x TC wide open - which is f8 - and get pretty decent results).

For those who are more detail oriented, here's exactly what I found:

1. At 400mm? At every aperture tested the 400mm f2.8 VRII was noticeably/visibly sharper than ANY of the other lenses. However, at f8 and smaller apertures, both the 80-400mm VR and the 200-400mm VR were very close to the "big prime" in sharpness. At f5.6 the 200-400 was slightly sharper than the 80-400mm VR (f5.6 is "wide open" for the 80-400mm), but at both f8 and f11 I found the 80-400mm VR to be very slightly sharper than 200-400mm VR. Which is really, really interesting (to me at least).

How did the shorter zooms plus TC stack up? Both of the 70-200mm zooms (the f2.8 VRII and the f4 VR) were noticeably softer than the 3 other lenses at 400mm - at all apertures. At f8 the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII plus 2x TC seemed very slightly sharper than the 70-200mm f4 VR plus TC, but at f11 the f4 version plus TC seemed slightly sharper.

2. At 360mm? I tested this focal length because with SOME Nikon zooms it seems like you get marginally sharper images if you "back off" the maximum focal length a little. But the results were generally unchanged - the two "big" zooms were considerably sharper than the shorter zooms plus TC. I found the 200-400mm to be the sharpest of the lot only at f5.6. At both f8 and f11 the 80-400mm VR was noticeably sharper than the 200-400mm VR - and dramatically sharper than the 70-200mm zooms with the 2x TC.

How did the two "shorter" zooms compare to one another at 360mm? At both f8 and f11 (the overlapping apertures with the TC attached) the 70-200mm VR f4 plus TC was noticeably sharper than the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII plus 2x TC.

3. At 300mm? Basically the same result - the only aperture where the 200-400mm VR was the sharpest of the bunch was at f5.6. At all smaller apertures the 80-400mm VR was noticeably sharper than any of the other lens or lens plus TC combos. One other thing stood out - at 300mm the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII plus 2x TC was just awful - absolutely shoddy results (as in really, really soft). And i found this to be the case on shots when I had the VR on and used the optical viewfinder and "appropriate" long lens technique AND on shots when I used Live View, VR off, and a cable release. Why? No real clue (sorry!).

4. At 200mm? At 200mm I compared the two "bigger" zooms (the 200-400mm VR and the 80-400mm VR) against the shorter zooms (the two 70-200's) shot native, i.e., without the 2x TC (other than getting "trapped with it on" there's zero reason to shoot a 70-200mm zoom at 200mm with a TC on - makes no sense at all).

Anyway...the results were very interesting here. The 200-400mm f4 VR performed very well at this focal length - it was the sharpest or second sharpest at all apertures. The 80-400mm fared less well - it was only the 3rd or 4th sharpest at 200mm. Overall, I found that when shooting at 200mm the lens ranked as follows (from sharpest to softest): 200-400mm VR, 70-200mm f2.8 VRII, 70-200mm f4 VR, and 80-400mm VR.

5. At 135mm? Now we're comparing ONLY the 80-400mm against the two 70-200mm zooms (couldn't figure out a way to shoot the 200-400mm at 135mm no matter what I did!). Anyway...the 80-400mm placed dead last at 135mm (at all apertures). BUT, it really wasn't much softer than the two 70-200mm's. The best at this focal length? At f4, f8, and f11 the 70-200mm f4 was marginally sharper than the f2.8 VRII while at f5.6 the f2.8VRII nudged it out at best. But this is REAL hair-splitting...in practical day-to-day terms all 3 of these lenses produced sharp, sharp images at 135mm.

6. At 80mm? This is the shortest focal length where the 80-400mm can be compared to the two 70-200mm's. The results? Almost indistinguishable - all 3 were extremely sharp. At f5.6 there seemed to be a slight edge to the 80-400mm (a bit surprising), but at f8 the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII seemed the sharpest. At f11? Sorry, I could NOT distinguish between the 3 lenses. So...all are tied for first (for cup half-fullers) or all are tied for 3rd (for cup half-emptiers).

C. Take Home Lessons? What am I going to try to keep in mind from this test whenever I'm in the field shooting? I guess the biggest take-home lesson is that at medium distances (in this case 38 meters or 125') and focal lengths OVER 200mm you'll do real well with the new 80-400mm VR. At 400mm you WILL do better with the big prime. At 200mm or below you'll do quite well with the new 80-400mm - tho' arguably not quite as well as with either of the two 70-200mm zooms. But this is actually quite amazing performance for the 80-400mm VR. One might reject using the 80-400mm at this distance for other reasons (i.e., you need/want the additional stop or two found on the 200-400mm or the 400mm f2.8 VRII - either because you need it for the light or you want a shallower DoF), but there's no real reason to not consider it based on sharpness of your final images...especially if you have the light to stop down just a tad (from wide open).

My two-sentence summary of my testing of the optical performance of the 80-400mmm f4.5-5.6 VR to date? Very impressive, if you ask me. And very, very versatile.

I still have more testing to do on this lens (at longer subject-to-camera distances), but unless images captured with this lens just "fall apart" at greater distances (which I think is highly unlikely), it's going to be darned hard NOT to recommend this lens as a great choice for an awful lot of folks.

Up next? Sharpness at a greater distance - this time in the 80m (or about 260') range. When? Sorry...I'm off now to the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary for my annual pilgrimage (aka to lead two grizzly bear photo tours). So you'll be waiting until about the end of the first week of June before I post any additional results with the 80-400mm. I will be shooting the 80-400mm as much as possible while I'm in the Khutzeymateen (which is often a low-light environment) - so I'll have lots more to say about the lens in June!

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

15 May 2013: The AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR - Up Close & Personal: Part 2

In my previous post I compared Nikon's new AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR lens to two high-end super-telephotos - the 400mm f2.8 VRII prime lens and the 200-400mm f4 VR zoom. These comparisons were at the long-end of the focal range and when focused on close subjects (like you would when photographing small mammals and many birds).

Another interesting comparison to make is how the new 80-400mm VR compares to two popular zoom lenses when they are combined with the TC-20EIII 2x teleconverter. The lenses I'm referring to are the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VRII and the "new" (or newish) 70-200mm f4 VR. Should owners of either of these two zooms consider buying the 80-400mm VR or should they just buy the TC-20EIII teleconverter? And, what about shooters who own none of these lenses but want to get into wildlife photography - would they be better served by picking up one of the "smaller" zooms and the TC-20EIII or just buy the new 80-400mm VR?

Like with the previous entry, this comparison will be limited to close-range shooting (in this case 4.9m - or about 16'). Unlike the previous comparison, I tested additional focal lengths - and at the very short end of the range (i.e., 200mm and shorter) I tested the 80-400mm against the f2.8 and f4 versions when shot native (without TC's).

And for those who are wondering, I WILL be presenting my findings over longer distances-to-subject in the fairly near future (most of those comparisons have already been shot).

A. What I Did: Pretty much the same as on my May 13 entry - I took a whole lot of controlled shots of a stump that was situated 4.9m (around 16') from the tripod-mounted camera (a D600). For each camera/lens combination I shot images over a range of apertures from wide open to f16. For each camera/lens combination I shot images at 1/3 stop increments for the first two stops smaller than "wide open", and then at 1-stop increments up to f16. I shot images at 400mm, 360mm, 300mm, 200mm, 135mm and 80mm. Which means I almost went cross-eyed staring at and scrutinizing over 800 images (I shot two frame bursts for each lens/focal length/aperture combination).

B. What I Found: A dizzying array of "factoids" for keeping in my back pocket when I'm out shooting, but there were some very interesting trends that I think many may find useful. So here you go:

1. Comparisons Involving the 2x Teleconverter: When I compared the new 80-400mm VR at focal lengths over 200mm (i.e., where the two 70-200mm zooms needed to be paired with the 2x TC) the result was clear - the 80-400mm VR was noticeably sharper. Period. And this trend was obvious at all focal lengths (400mm, 360mm, 300mm) and apertures tested.

And, at the three focal lengths tested (400mm, 360mm, 300mm) and at most apertures, the 70-200mm f4 VR plus TC-20EIII 2x teleconverter was very slightly sharper than 70-200mm f2.8 VRII plus teleconverter. But I want to stress that with this "very slightly sharper" observation I was REALLY splitting hairs - unless one looks at these images at 100% magnification and does close side-by-side comparisons, one would almost never notice the sharpness difference between these two 70-200mm zooms when combined with the 2x TC. (BTW: the only exception to this trend was at 400mm and f8 - which is wide open for the 70-200mm f4 plus 2x TC combination - for this aperture ONLY the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII plus TC combination appeared very slightly or arguably sharper than with the 70-200mm f4 plus 2x TC).

2. Comparisons NOT Involving the 2x TC: At focal lengths of 200mm and shorter I compared the lenses shot "natively" (without a TC attached). I tested the lenses at 200mm, 135mm, and 80mm. What did I find? The most significant thing was this: there was almost NO difference in sharpness between the three zooms at any of the focal lengths (or apertures) tested. And there was certainly no trend. For example, at 200mm and f5.6 the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII seemed slightly sharper than the other two lenses. But at f8 the 80-400mm VR seemed slightly sharper. But major hair-splitting is going on here!

IMPORTANT NOTE: A major REAL WORLD caveat to the results above - especially those at 200mm and shorter focal ranges where sharpness differences were very small. It's important to remember that all these shots were captured when the cameras/lenses were shot from a large, firm tripod. I suspect that all 3 of these lenses (with and without a teleconverter attached) will often be shot hand-held, especially for wildlife. In this case, the effectiveness of the VR system could easily "overcome" the small differences in image sharpness I observed. In other words, the critical factor in "real-world" image sharpness could easily become determined by which lens offers the best VR system. Subjectively, it's my opinion that the best VR system is found on the 70-200mm f4 VR. The VR systems on the other two lenses seem very similar to me in performance, tho' I get the feeling that the VR on the new 80-400mm VR is slightly better than on the 70-200mm VRII (if you quote me on this, please include the "get the feeling" qualifier!).

C. Take Home Lessons? For me there's some pretty significant lessons here that I will apply to my own shooting:

1. If I'm shooting subjects (like small mammals and/or birds) at close range and I need a focal length of over 200mm I'll definitely opt for new AF-S 80-400mm VR over either 70-200mm VR with a 2x TC. It's noticeably sharper.

2. If I'm shooting subjects at close range and I need a focal range of 200mm or shorter my choice of lens will be driven by concerns OTHER than image sharpness differences, such as the amount of available light and Depth of Field (DoF) concerns.

3. If I was asked whether one should opt for the 80-400mm VR versus one of the 70-200mm lenses plus a 2x TC for shooting wildlife, I'm already thinking I would point them at the 80-400mm VR. But...the performance of the lenses at longer distances (coming soon!) must be answered before I'd be comfortable making a firm recommendation...

What's up next? Comparisons at mid-range distances - the kind you use when working with larger mammals like deer and elk (so about 30-45m or 100' to 150'). And with the 400mm f2.8 VR, 200-400mm f4 VR, 70-200mm f2.8 VRII plus TC-20EIII, and the 70-200mm f4 VR plus TC-20EIII. And if you think your head is spinning now... ;-)

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

13 May 2013: The Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR - Up Close & Personal!

Many of the nature photographers who are considering purchasing the new AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR will at least occasionally use it to photograph small mammals or birds at close range. I know this is definitely something I would use the lens for. So this morning I took a few minutes to do a little head-to-heat testing of the 80-400mm VR against a few other Nikon lenses at "small mammal" range. The lenses I chose to compare the 80-400mm VR to were the 400mm f2.8 VRII and the 200-400mm f4 VR.

A. What I Did: I simply set up my camera on a tripod about 4.9m (16') from a stump that is known to have a squirrel visit it once in a while. The stump is a good subject simply because it offers fine texture and detail and there is nothing in the immediate background, thus allowing one to easily compare the quality of both the in-focus zones and the out-of-focus zones. All images were captured at 400mm using a D600 camera. I left the VR on (and used the appropriate "on-tripod" mode for each lens). For each lens I shot a sequence of images from "wide open" through to f16 (in 1/3 stop increments for the first two stops, thereafter in full stop increments).

B. What I Found: After scrutinizing several hundred images of a stump for way too long (borrrring!!!), some trends were readily and consistently apparent. In my final field test of this lens I will provide photographic evidence of each of these observations/conclusions - for now you'll have to take my word for it!

1. Significant Focus Breathing on the AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR: When I switched between lenses it was instantly apparent that at this close range (4.9m or 16') that the focal length was shortening significantly on the 80-400mm VR lens. This shortening of focal range at close focus distances is often referred to as "focus breathing? and is found on some other Nikon zooms (e.g., the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII). How bad was the focus breathing? Well, at a focus distance of 4.9m (16'), the 80-400mm was equivalent to about a 300mm lens (this was easily checked by zooming the 200-400mm lens until the stump was of equivalent size using both lenses). So, at this distance there was about a 25% reduction in focal length with the 80-400mm VR. Some won't care about this - others will be very concerned about it. Me? Not a big deal to me (I'll just move closer if I have to!). But...if someone is considering buying this lens they should be aware of this "issue".

2. Image Sharpness Comparison: The focus breathing issue confounded the process of comparing image sharpness somewhat, but not so much as to make differences in sharpness undetectable (when viewed at 100% magnification - or 1:1). At equivalent apertures the 400mm f2.8 VR was noticeably sharper than the two zooms (no surprise there). BUT, interestingly, at f7.1 and smaller (more about this aperture choice below) it was incredibly tough to see any sharpness differences between the 80-400mm VR and the 200-400mm VR (at f5.6 - which is "wide open" on the 80-400mm lens at 400mm - the 200-400mm f4 WAS noticeably sharper).

3. The Out-of-Focus Zones? One of the more important characteristics of a "great" lens (and one of the main reasons demanding photographers are willing to shell out thousands and thousands of dollars for "fast" primes) is how smooth and pleasing the out-of-focus zones are. And, this is another area where the results are confounded somewhat by the focus breathing on the 80-400mm VR (different focal lengths of lenses will have differing depths-of-field (DoF), which will impact on just "how out of focus" a background is). Anyway...again a trend was clear (even with the focus breathing): at the widest aperture at 400mm where all 3 lenses could be compared (f5.6), the 400mm f2.8 DEFINITELY had the smoothest ("creamy as butter") out-of-focus zones. Just super sweet bokeh. The 200-400mm VR placed second in this regard, and there was a noticeable difference in the out-of-focus zones between the 200-400mm VR and the 80-400mm VR. BUT, the 80-400mm VR still was surprisingly good.

4. Sharpness When Shot Wide Open? Another of the "hallmarks" of a great lens is that it is very close to maximally sharp when shot with the aperture wide open or, alternately, you have to stop it down very little before you get to maximal sharpness. The 400mm f2.8 VR is VERY sharp at f2.8 and you only have to stop down by about 1/3 of a stop before it is biting sharp. Similarly, the 200-400mm f4 VR is quite sharp (at close distances) at f4. It is slightly sharper at f4.5, but further stopping down makes very little difference in sharpness. The 80-400mm VR? At 400mm it's a bit soft when shot wide open (f5.6). And, it's still soft at f6.3. By f7.1 it's getting sharper, and close to maximally sharp.

So, outwardly that doesn't sound too bad - right? With the 400mm f2.8 VR and the 200-400mm f4 VR you stop down about 1/3 of a stop before getting close to maximize sharpness...and with the 80-400mm f5.6 VR you have to stop down 2/3 to a full stop before getting close to maximum sharpness. Heck, it's only a third of a stop difference! BUT, don't forget you're starting with a smaller aperture to begin with on the 80-400mm VR. So...with the 400mm f2.8 VR you get razor-shop images at f3.2, whereas with the 80-400mm VR f4.5-5.6 you get quite sharp images at f7.1 or f8. That's a BIG difference - and it can REALLY impact on the control you have over your DoF, how well you can separate your subject from the background, and the final appearance of your image.

OK - time for a reality check. Do the issues of focus breathing and the fact that you have to stop down a little more (from an already "narrower" aperture) before getting close to maximum sharpness "damn" the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR to forever being an "amateur" or - at best - an "enthusiast" lens? I don't think so...my view is that it's more a matter of knowing the strengths and weaknesses of a lens (they ALL have weaknesses!) and dealing with the accordingly. Recall that I started this entry about talking about photographing small mammals and birds. Well...while I was playing with my stump this morning, a pesky squirrel shoved his snout into my viewfinder (so to speak) while I had the 80-400mm lens on. And, at the end of the day - it's about the images, right? Check this one out...

• Red On Green: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.4 MB)

Is it sharp enough for you? That's your call to make. Right now I'm feeling that this lens's attributes (primarily its great focal range in a compact-enough and light-enough form to easily carry around) outweigh the slight trade-off in image sharpness and DoF control. When I encounter a pine marten attacking a squirrel on the top of a mountain I've had to hike 15 km up, the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR that I have with me is going to take a better picture than my 400mm f2.8 VRII (or a 200-400mm f4 VR) that are sitting back at home because they were too darned heavy to carry up the mountain!

What's up next? Likely some comparisons at mid-range distances - the kind you use when working with larger mammals like deer and elk (so about 30-45m or 100' to 150'). Stay tuned...

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

9 May 2013: The Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR Part 1 - Very First Impressions...

My "test" copy of the new 80-400mm VR zoom (which is formally known as the AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR) arrived late yesterday afternoon. This long-overdue upgrade (the lens it was replacing is over 12 years old!) has been eagerly anticipated by many Nikon shooters, and especially by many Nikon-shooting nature photographers. Between its great focal range and reasonably compact size (for a 400mm lens) this lens has almost magnetic appeal and just so much potential. For day-to-day use. For hiking. For wildlife shooting. For sports shooting. And so much more. It's actually hard NOT to be excited about this lens!

Because of this appeal and great potential I will be thoroughly testing this lens over the coming months. It will be headed into the Khutzeymateen Grizzly Sanctuary with me in a few weeks - and I will have a chance to REALLY push the lens and see what it can REALLY do in there. And, it's already been with me on two casual walks where I've used it the way I anticipate using it a LOT in the coming months - as a walkaround companion that I will be regularly shooting hand-held.

Before I decide to permanently add this lens to my bag I will need to answer several questions, including: Is the lens sufficiently sharp to please me when shot wide open, especially near the long end of its focal range? Is the autofocus system adequate to capture sharp action shots of moving subjects (like birds in flight)? Is the VR effective enough to allow hand-holding of the lens at all focal lengths (and on all FX bodies)? How does it compare at overlapping focal lengths with the popular (but much more expensive) 200-400 f4 zoom? And so on...

What follows are my earliest impressions after "playing" with the lens in the field for only a few hours. Take it for what it's worth...

1. Some Real World Practical Considerations:

A. Packing it Around!

I mentioned above that the lens is quite compact. In real world terms it's not much bigger or heavier than the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. Actually, with hood reversed the 80-400mm VR is slightly shorter than the 70-200mm f2.8 VR. And it weighs only a little under 3 ounces more than the 70-200 (both weighed with tripod foot removed).

This size issue is more than academically interesting - at least to me. Because on my daily peregrinations around my home I can encounter many species of wildlife, I like to keep my cameras and lenses real handy and quick to access (as in "quicker-than-digging-it-out-of-a-pack quick"). I do it by using a Think Tank Steroid Speed Belt (info available here) combined with a shoulder strap system known as a Pixel Racing Harness (info available here) - and I often have a pro camera with 70-200mm lens in a water-resistant holster called a Digital Holster 50 (info available here) attached to the belt system. The great news is that the new 80-400mm fits into the same digital holster (when mounted on a pro body). And, it also fits into another good 200mm lens case (one that also happens to work with the Steroid Speed Belt system) from Lowepro called the Lens Exchange Case 200 AW (from their S&F Series).

In my real world, little things like conveniently carrying a camera/lens around makes a BIG difference in its usability. Of course optics are critical, but so is actually having the lens with you (What's that old saying again? Oh yeah..."F8 and BE THERE!").

So far - big check mark #1.

B. ARGHHH on the Lens Hood!

One of the reasons I (and I suspect many others) have been excited about the new 80-400mm is that it should be a great "always have it with you" lens. That's why I'm excited about it fitting into the system I use when I'm hiking. A related issue is getting that camera out of my holster and ready-to-go fast. The holster helps a ton with this. BUT, when you pull your camera out of the holster and go to shoot (as that perfectly posed elk at sunset gets ready to move), you quickly discover that it is impossible to access the zoom ring on the lens until the hood is either taken off or put in its extended position (specifically, when the hood is in the reversed position, it totally obscures the zoom ring). So before you shoot you have to stop and find the release button on the hood, take it off and either throw it to the ground in frustration OR take MORE time to carefully put it in its extended position. Little thing? Sure. But...bye, bye elk at sunset shot!

So chalk this up as Con #1. Makes me wonder if ANYONE actually tested a prototype of this lens in a real world field setting. So basic...

C. The Tripod Collar?

I'm still waiting for a Arca-Swiss compatible lens plate (from Wimberley) for this lens to arrive, so I have to reserve judgment on how well the tripod collar works. My gut says it's too wimpy and flexible to work effectively (i.e., it may flex/twist and bind up a little), but I may be wrong on that. On the positive side, it comes off easily! If it turns out that the collar is too flexible, at least one 3rd party manufacturer (Really Right Stuff) is in the process of developing both a replacement collar (the LC-A13) and a replacement collar with a foot with an integrated arca-swiss plate (the LC-A13 Package). Mine may be on order soon (but I'm hope I'm wrong on this).

So I'm still on the fence on this one, but that collar and foot seems pretty flimsy to me...

2. Uhhh...But How Does the Lens Perform?

Right - lens performance. OK...consider what follows as VERY PRELIMINARY - and subject to change and/or refinement with more structured and rigorous testing. So far all I've done is walk around with the lens and shoot 500 or so hand-held shots (and I've only had the lens for 18 hours!). But here's some very first impressions (all the shots below are full-frame (not cropped) shots - but I have cut them in resolution to 2400 pixels on long axis to speed download times):

A. Autofocus performance

OK - it absolutely annihilates its aged ancestor in the autofocus department (especially in autofocus SPEED). But...that wouldn't be too hard - the old 80-400 was a dog when it came to autofocus! But the new lens does seem snappy and fast, and I can already say that focus-tracking seems to be good and definitely adequate for most bird-in-flight shots. How do I know? Well, check out this "dog-in-flight" shot (best to view at 100% magnification - AKA 1:1):

• Jose Running: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.9 MB)

B. Is it really hand-holdable at 400mm?

Yep, no problem. And, the shot used to illustrate this also shows how all those fancy Nikon letters (ED and Super ED elements; N or Nano Coating) DO help ensure that the lens holds contrast in tricky lighting conditions (in this case strong side-lighting). And, it also shows that you don't have to stop down much (if at all) from wide-open at 400mm to get decently sharp shots (best to view at 100% magnification - AKA 1:1):

• Jose Sidelit: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 2.4 MB)

C. How is it at shorter focal lengths?

Hmmm...at just over 200mm it seems pretty darned sharp. And, at least at near the short end of the focal range (and when used with a 24 MP D600), edge-to-edge sharpness seems pretty good. As always best to examine sharpness on these shots when viewed at 100%:

• Blue Kootenay Sunrise: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.1 MB)

• Pre-dawn Light: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 959 Kb)

Seems kind of odd to be summarizing much after such preliminary testing - but I think it's fair to already say that the new version of the 80-400mm is much better than its ancient ancestor. And, while I still have a ton of questions to answer before deciding if this lens is a keeper for me, it HAS passed my first crude (but decidedly real-world) "tests" - and with flying colors. Except for that damned hood - that's going to drive me crazy! But, overall...still looking pretty darned good...

More real soon...stay tuned...

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

9 March 2013: The "New" AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR - Preliminary Thoughts...

At long last! Nikon has finally updated its original "super-zoom" - the 80-400mm VR. The new model is officially designated as the AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR. Oddly, there was a full 12 years between version 1 and version 2 of this lens. Perhaps Nikon was waiting until they had just enough acronyms built up to describe this lens...if you go to any Nikon website you'll find this lens features all the critical bits of the alphabet, including "AF-S, ED, VR, SWM, IF, N, SIC, A/M, and M/A". ;-)

An 80-400mm zoom covers an absolutely great focal range for both general nature photographers and wildlife photographers. Add in the relative small size of this lens and you have - at least in theory - a fantastically versatile lens for many types of shooters, and one that doesn't break your back to carry around all day in the field. But, the original version had some very serious - and very limiting - shortcomings, including sharpness that was "iffy" at best (especially at the long end of the focal range), a very slow AF system, a poor (quite flimsy) tripod collar, a penchant for sucking dust into its innards (owing largely to the expanding nature of the zoom), and - at least by today's standards - a barely adequate VR system.

If you peruse the specs (available here on dpreview.com's website) and read a few of the descriptions of the lens that are already online, you'll find the lens offers a totally new optical design (which is promising), both ED (extra low dispersion) and Super ED lens elements, nano-crystal coating on some elements (this reduces flare and improves contrast on backlit scenes and/or subjects), and a 4 stop VR system that automatically detects and adjusts for tripods (which could be cool). And, not insignificantly, the new lens sports a 77mm filter thread - same as on the 16-35mm f4 VR, the 24-70mm f2.8, and the 70-200mm f2.8 VR (I and II). Which means a lot of buyers will already have the filters they need for use with this lens. Which is a very good thing.

But what is all this likely to mean in the real world (and once you get into the field)? I have no doubt at all that both the AF system and the VR system will be vastly superior to those on the previous version. Those two improvements alone will convince many to buy this lens.

My biggest concerns? First and foremost, image sharpness - especially at the longer end of the focal range. To date, I have not found a Nikon zoom with over a 3x total focal length zoom range that I have been happy with in terms of image sharpness. I don't really know why "maximum of 3x optical zoom focal range" (which. of course, includes such venerable and sharp lenses as the 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 and f4 zooms, and the "hyper popular among wildlife shooters" 200-400mm f4 zoom) seems to be the "magic magnification range" for obtaining high quality imagery with a zoom lens. I just know that, to date, it has been an unwritten rule. I AM hoping that Nikon has found a way to break this rule with the new 5x 80-400mm zoom. I'd love it if this new lens turns out to be super sharp! But...I have to admit I'm more than a little skeptical about how sharp this updated version of the 80-400 can really be...especially when it's attached to the newer high-res, full-frame bodies, like the D600 and D800. Fingers crossed.

My other significant concern? I'm hoping Nikon has found a way to prevent this new extending zoom from sucking dust into its elements - this was a noticeable issue with the old one (if you put it to tough field use).

Yes, I will be testing this lens - with a completely open mind - as soon as I can lay my hands on one. And, I have to say I'm REALLY looking forward to putting this one through its paces - it has SO much promise! If it comes close to delivering on the promises supplied by all those acronyms, this could be one very sweet lens. ;-)

Cheers...

Brad

Feedback to: feedback@naturalart.ca

B. The Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 Zoom

13 Aug 2013: The Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 Zoom Lens Field Test - The Reader's Digest Version

When I test and write up my Field Tests on various camera bits I normally write blog entries as I proceed through the testing, then write up a single final Field Test. The field tests can be quite extensive and will always contain sample images. And, the very last thing I do is write up the Executive Summary for that product.

This time I'm going to change my approach and give you the "Readers Digest" version of my full field test (omitting, in this version, some of the detail and most of supporting images) right now. Why? Two reasons. First, my testing of Sigma's new 120-300mm f2.8 zoom lens came about quite unexpectedly - I had only a few days from hearing it was a go through to receiving the lens. And I could only keep it for 10 days or so. So I had zero time to write up blog updates on the various different comparative tests I did with the lens. Second, I'm about to head out on my "Humpbacks, Orcas, Sea Lions and More" Photo Tour and will be gone for a few weeks - and when I get back I know I'm going to be absolutely swamped. Thus it will be awhile before I'll be able to post those sequential blog entries describing my progress on testing the Sigma lens. More than a few folks have been emailing me asking about my thoughts on this lens (even without knowing I was testing it) and I'd prefer not to keep them waiting. So here's all many will need to help them decide if this lens is for them (or not)...