Micah Walter

I was just perusing my morning RSS feeds (the modern day replacement of reading the paper) when I noticed that Kodak had announced a couple new EASYSHARE cameras that utilize the HD format. HD has been becoming more and more popular now that HD Video cameras are getting cheap enough to fall into the hands on the ever-ready-to-spend-money “prosumer.” But I have always wondered about the format.

So it got me thinking. What’s in a format? Why is the HD 16:9 ratio so popular these days? It may be partly due to the fact that more and more people have HD televisions, or maybe it’s that new pesky iPhone thing. Whatever the reason, HD is here to stay, at least until something better comes out.

Ever since Apple introduced it’s widescreen PowerBooks computer makers have been jumping on the widescreen bandwagon all over the market. It’s somewhat hard to find a 4:3 ratio laptop these days, and speaking of 4:3, what’s the deal with the 4/3rds cameras? Out of nowhere we have yet another format.

Ansel Adams once said that the 4:5 format was the “ideal” format. He meant that it had the most appealing aspect ratio for the type of work that he did. Something like, it was the easiest on the eyes. I think the 5×7 shooter would disagree.

For years now the 35mm format (3:2) has been the king. But, I cannot tell you how many times I have had to try and explain to a customer at the photo lab I used to work for, why their group shot that spanned the entire frame in their point and shoot camera would not fit very nicely into an 8×10. Why are people who make prints so obsessed with formats like 8×10 and 5×7 and 11×14. Non of these formats are the same aspect ratio, and none of them are close to a 35mm frame.

In the digital SLR world we have all sorts of formats ranging from the APS sized sensor, all the way up to “full-frame” 35mm. The aspect ratios have usually remained the same as 35mm, but there is the crop factor which makes your lenses appear more telephoto than wide. Once camera makers reach the full-frame milestone, will the continue on, creating cameras and lenses with larger formats? Will they change aspect ratios?

The new Nikon D3 has the ability to shoot in three formats. That’s right, three formats. You can select from the full-frame 3:2 format, APS cropped format or an additional 5:4 ratio cropped format aimed at portrait shooters. But what’s the point? Can’t I still crop after the fact? Aren’t I throwing away pixels? Well, obviously the reasoning behind the APS sized format is to allow the camera to operate at higher frame rates, but what’s the deal with the 5:4?

A photo teacher I once had in college got into a heated debate with my classmates when I left the black borders visible from my Hasselblad. One side of the room argued that it was just a cheap way of showing off the type of camera you used, and the other claimed it was an aesthetic. I think I just did it because I saw other people doing it. The debate heated up to the point of arguing about whether or not it is okay to crop negatives in the dark room. I mean, the purists believe you have to crop in the camera, and you can only use a single fixed focal length lens and you have to shave your head before taking a single photo. Come on…

As for aspect ratios, it’s definitely mostly about aesthetics. Widescreen movies you find at the theaters have been really really wide for a long time, because it is a pleasing format for the audience. Can you imagine walking into a theatre to watch a movie shot in portrait? The 35mm aspect ratio is pleasing in a photojournalistic way. But so is HD. The other half of the equation is probably having to do with trends in the marketplace. HD television sets mean HD video cameras, mean HD still cameras.

Anyway, I’m just about finished with my rant. I plan to set up an Automator workflow that will quickly crop all of my images to HD, regardless of their content or purpose. That way I will be able to view them on my new TV, when I get it, in HD, low-res glory.

So, I am probably obsessing a little here with a follow up to my last post. With a little free time today I decided to look at the potential differences between a full-bore Canon and Nikon system. So, I put together the following price list. I actually used Apple’s new Numbers app for this, which was kind of fun too.

The idea behind this equipment list is that this would be a pretty typical professional level set up. Obviously every photography has his or her own personal preferences, and I too would probably add or subtract or rearrange things here and there. But, between Canon and Nikon’s lineup, I think this is a pretty typical pro setup, and as close a comparison as I could do.

Also, please note that some of the prices are rounded, some are from B+H and some are based on articles I have seen on the web as to what the new yet to be released equipment will actually cost. So there is some slop in the numbers here.

Okay, so here is the idea. Two pro level bodies, three main lenses ranging from very wide all the way up to telephoto. One fast macro lens, and a 300 2.8. I also added a 1.4x Teleconverter and a single top end Speedlight to the mix. I left out additional accessories like extra batteries, memory cards and things like that.

As you can see, the Canon system is significantly less expensive. I wasn’t surprised, and am thinking this may have to do with the “slop” in the estimated street prices for Nikon’s new lenses. However, check out some of the pros and cons. Aside from price, with the Nikon you get a 12 megapixes full-frame sensor. With the Canon you get a cropped 1.3x 10 megapixel sensor. This means that the Nikon system will have a range of 14mm-300mm not including the teleconverter. With the Canon you end up with a 21mm-390mm. The Canon shoots RAW images at full resolution at 10 frames per second. The Nikon can do 8fps at 12 mpix, but to hike it up to 11 fps you have to crop down to 1.5x and 5.5 mpixels.

In my opinion (and I am not a sports shooter) the difference between 8 fps and 11 fps doesn’t really bother me. To me, I am more interested in the full frame, wide angle end of the spectrum.

We will have to wait and see how things go when the actual prices show up. I will be sure to update the spreadsheet when I know more details!

I know what you are probably thinking. 1) How come the Objects of Desire category is so “all over the place.” 2) I thought you shoot Canon! Well, to answer the first question, I am a gear junkie. Admittedly, I will stand up in front of a room of anonymous gear junkies and state, “My name is Micah Walter, and I am addicted to gear.” I don;t think it’s my fault exactly, but even though I continually preach about how good and expensive equipment does not a photographer make, I really do love the stuff. Maybe I just enjoy marveling in the glow of really amazing engineering. Sort of like someone consumes a work of art and wonders “how did they do that?”

The most recent piece of equipment, which I cannot seem to get out of my head is the recently announced Nikon D3. So, first, I will give you some back story. I say first, because I don’t want to spark a giant Canon vs. Nikon debate. I have used both for years and have had successes and failures all around.

I began my photographic endeavors with a Nikon FM2. It was loaned to me by my father, and I used it in grade school up until the point where everyone thought I should have my own. So, we shopped around and I got a Nikon FM. It was the older less sophisticated model, but I got it for free from a friend, and all we had to do was purchase a lens.

From that point on I was a exclusive Nikon shooter. Following the FM, I upgraded to a used F3, and eventually got a second body. The F3s were amazing cameras. They had very little in terms of automatic features, but the light meters were very accurate, and they never failed. I still have one of them, sitting on my desk at my parents house, collecting dust. If you are interested in buying it, don’t bother asking, it’s not for sale.

When I decided to go pro, I was on the event horizon of the digital era. I chose to purchase the all new Nikon D100 and a few lenses. The D100 was a great camera. It had its limitations, but it made amazingly colorful and crisp images. Some of my best work was shot on that camera.

To supplement my camera equipment arsenal I bought a Nikon D2h. This is where the trouble began. The D2h was my first pro level digital SLR. I paid over $3000 for it, and used it for about six months. I was never satisfied with it. It was really nice in certain ways, such as the ergonomics and that incredible 8 frames per second shutter that had just the right Nikon feel to it. But, it really lacked where it counted–image quality. For many types of situations it was just fine, but once you cranked the ISO above 400 all hell broke loose. In addition to noisy images at high ISOs (what photojournalist can work below 400?) image quality really fell apart in mixed light. The auto-white balance was all over the place, and due to the fact that I was mostly shooting hearing on Capitol Hill at the time, I decided to ditch the entire Nikon system and go for a Canon 20D.

The switch was pretty easy. I got a 20D, and a few lenses and a flash. I was really in heaven being able to safely shoot at ISO 800, and the auto-white balance was far better than any camera I had used in the past.

For a while I had lusted over the 5D, and the other Canons. But now, with the announcement of the new Nikon D3 and the new 14-24 f/2.8, I am really wishing I was still a Nikon shooter. I miss the ergonomics, and the shutter sounds, and the build quality. Of course, the proof will be in the pudding once I see a high ISO image made in mixed light, but I have heard the rumors, and it sounds really promising.

I really like the Leica M8, but I will definitely wait until the fix up the image quality and offer a full-frame sensor. I can’t see myself affording a 1Ds Mark III anytime soon, even though that thing looks incredible. So, I wonder, should I wait for the next version of the 5D to arrive, with more pixels a faster shutter and a bigger buffer? Or, should I think about jumping back to my roots and save my pennies for a reverse switch back to Nikon?

Any thoughts?

This is just cool.

For a while now, I have been thinking of starting a long term project. The idea for this project has come at me from many different directions, but the basis has to do with human migration. I’m not exactly sure what that means at the moment, but basically, I am talking about the need for people to stay or go. There is of course a giant migration of hispanics who are moving north into the United States and elsewhere. Most I would believe are doing this in order to better their lives and find a source of viable income which they can use to support their families. And, naturally they are met with the obvious obstacles.

I’m not so interested in the political mess we are in along the Mexico-United States border, but more about how a giant migration will affect the culture in both their destinations and their origins.

And, it seems like many want to get to “America.” So there is the migrations of others from places like the Dominican Republic and Haiti, etc.

Then there are those who are trying their hardest to “stay.” Take for example the Palestinians and the Israelis. I bring them up only because I have spent some times documenting their conflict. Now that I think about it, I should have been focusing on their need for land and stature and stability. The Israelis (most of them) migrated form other nations and created Israel as a refuge. The Palestinians of course (and many can debate this definition) where nomads, who needed an identity in order to create their sense of place. Why do they feel so strongly about staying put, while others feel the never ending desire to get away to bigger and better things?

I think the movement of people around the world is incredible. I myself feel somewhat homeless and nomadic. I have had my share of “homes” over the last 5 or 6 years, but I have never felt that sense of settlement. For some reason I feel that desire growing inside me, that need to create a place of my own which I will call my “home” for the rest of my life. I don’t know where it came from, or how rapidly it will develop, but I can feel it itching underneath my skin.

I will be calling this project, Migration, of course, and once I have done some more serious work on the project I will create a website for it. I have a few equipment needs to get in lace before the real endeavor begins, and then I will need to begin my research and follow my leads. I will keep you updated on the project’s progress here at this site.