Wait until dark, dark as where MS should put anything related to Metro into.

I have used professionally anything from Win 3.1, 95, Me, NT, 2000, XP and Vista and was happy with it (err, please exclude Me). I forgave it to not offer a shell like bash/csh/tcsh because they all did a wonderful job to what the have been designed for and what the user expected… (To give credit to Win 7: good friends assured me that it is indeed the logical step to go from XP via Vista with keeping only the best of them)

Windows 8 might do what it is designed for, but fails on the user expectation. I have a Nokia 920 and I keep it ONLY because the camera is so good. The OS is (almost) unbearable. If I was a phone “power-user” it would have been sent back to Amazon immediately. Usability is unspeakable - I use it in parallel a HTC Sensation and I catch myself using this older phone (smaller, inferior screen) instead of my shiny new 920: Because every single piece of software sucks. I haven’t found a single app for WP 8 that comes even close to the Android equivalent. Anyway, the camera on this phone is really good, so good that I even forgive the blind monkey who programmed its software, which subtracts 10 points of the possible quality of the hardware. 

I use a Nikon D800e as my principal imaging device - if the firmware was that bad as in the 920 I would exchange it with a D90 without compensation without any hesitation. This is how bad it is. Don’t tell me Nokia sucks, MS bought themselves into it, my N8 beats this “software” by a mile

Back to “real Windows 8″

I know, I suck at UI design. I know because I recognize poor design when I look at mine, but from MS I expected better. If everything is such a FU like I produce, why buying an OS? First in W8 is Metro.

After you found a way to show a desktop. Finally your 27″ screen makes sense …. until you open Skype. The preinstalled Skype switches to the Metro app, you have to be almost an detective to find the download to the desktop app - I really spend hours to explain it to engineers who got trapped on the skype site. 

Why you need Skype on the desktop?  For example to talk with a workmate about a pdf you both have just received - f?#k pdfs also open as a Metro app, so uninstall this as well and replace it with the normal Adobe Reader (I am wondering if installing the full Adobe suite will do this automatically or if each “final preview” will throw you back to the tiles). Two nowdays essential apps “fubar” - in literal sense. 

It might be that many users are fine with this, but please Microsoft: If this is the case, please rethink your version policy: Make W8RT for tablets that nobody will use after seeing an iPad/Nexus device (sales ~ 0). Make a Win 8 classic edition (sales unknown, ask marketing to get wrong estimates) and a Win8 XP edition for those how actually use a computer and know what it is good for (sales >>> OSX).

Currently Microsft only offers the first two choices, thus I have to get a Mac (Lightroom doesn’t run on Linux…) when my 4 year old Vista machine goes south - I will pay happily $1000 for overpriced Apple hardware before I will spend $0 on using Win 8 on a machine I pay for.

OK, this is a rant, a rant of someone who directly accounted for 5-digit direct sales for MS and 6-digits indirect sales. Correct that, some of the organizations I had in mind already switched to Linux, I can’t go there, I am (still) a faithful Adobe customer (Adobe, how long do you thing I will go through the pain of using 2nd or 3rd rate OSes?)

PS: Solaris Rules! (no irony)  

I prefer the 35mm FoV, I feel it is closer to the perspective we get with our vision (might be subjective), so I 35mm was called for. The Nikkor 35/1.4 has some issues with strong LoCA, the old 35/2.0 was simple not sharp enough on a D800, so recently the Nikon version of the Sigma 35mm 1.4 DG came out and here it is:

(more…)

Zutaten (2-3 Personen)

• 250g Hackfleich (Rind)
• 200ml Milch*
• 100g Gouda
• 100g Roquefort
• 1 Zwiebel
• 3 EL Speiseöl
• 1 TL Speisestärke
• 1 TL getrocknetes Basilikum
• 1 TL Kalbsfondpulver*
• Worchestershire Sauce (nach Geschmack)

* Kalbsfondpulver ist nicht überall zu bekommen, alternativ 150ml Kalbsbrühe + 50ml Sahne (Milch dann weglassen).

Zwiebel hacken und im Öl 5′ anschwitzen, dann das Hack zugeben, stets grosse Hitze und gründlich zerkrümeln.

Währendessen Kalbsfond in Milch auflösen und mit der Stärke mixen, am besten kalt, sonst klumpt die Stärke.

Wenn das Hack gut durchgebraten und braun ist, die Flüssigkeit in einem Schwall hinzugeben und die Hitze auf warmhalten runterdrehen. Gut den Pfannenboden schaben, damit sich das angeröstete Fleisch löst.

Jetzt den Käse hinzugeben und unterrühren bis er geschmolzen ist.

Noch Basilikum hinzugeben und mit der Worchestershire Sauce abschmecken.

Gesamtdauer ca. 20′

Pasta oder Kartoffelbrei auf einen tiefen (vorwärmen ist immer eine gute Idee) Teller und die Käsebolognese darüber. Für ein richtiges Abendessen noch mit ein paar Blatt Petersilie garnieren und einen Gewürztraminer (nicht zu kalt!) dazu.

Guten Appetit!

The 35mm is a DX lens, it has a rather large image circle, but still at longer distances it visibly vignettes and literally cuts corners when stopped down. With the TC (tele converter) the vignetting is history, but how much will the resolution suffer?

My test was to shoot with a D800e at the same distance of ~2′ with mirror lockup and live-view focus both optics.

(more…)

Main use of a tele-converter (TC in the following, I type slowly) is to increase the focal length to get a higher magnification.

I am not a big fan of such crutches, but I had another good reason (or two): My Tamron 60mm f/2 is a DX lens and it vignettes heavily at larger distances, I wanted to give it a second life on my D800e. Also I wanted a bigger magnifaction than 1:1 without reducing my working distance.

Last but not least there was a discussion on flickr if a high-resolution body like the D800 wouldn’t put an end to to TCs in general.

Well, there the TC delivered more than I expected:

(more…)

My main reasons to switch was that my good old D90 eventually succumbed the sea-water accident I had some years ago and I couldn’t get myself into buying a true replacement. D400 still not here and the D7000 feels awkward for me, most importantly I wanted the focus system of the D300 …

Forget it, the D800 does its job.

So how is FX different from DX?

Main issue DoF: Compared to DX you have to stop a FX one stop down to get the same DoF. Compare this with a base ISO of 100 compared to the 200 of the D90-300 you find yourself at four times longer shutter speeds. You need more light and/or a better technique to pull this out.

Real challenge: The D800 is a high-res body, diffraction is an issue. Shoot it f/11 or less and say good-bye to pixel-level sharpness. This creates real problems when shooting landscapes when you discover that f/5.6 at 14mm is not just “set to 1.5m and everything is sharp”. Next on my shopping list is a Tilt/Shift lens (I am eyeing on the Samyang 24 T/S) to solve this problem.

(more…)

Size and weight. It doesn’t feel that big. The weight is relative, with a 70-200/2.8 it actually handles better than a smaller body with such a lens. With the 24-85 VR it is noticebly bulkier than a D90 with a 35/1.8, but barely different from a D90 with a 17-50 Tamron.

Resolution. The angular resolution is at the level of a D7000, so keeping the speeds at the level where I was comfortable with worked out. Using Auto ISO the D800 adjust the speed to 1/focal length. Due to the good grip and the well designed shutter button I get enough 100% sharp pictures out of it (you can still tune this in the settings)

Dynamic range: Mindblowing. In Lr4 pull down Highlight by 100 and pull up shadows by 100 - no visible degradation, not color shifts.

High ISO: Auto ISO works really well, but shooting at 6400 is still OK. At pixel level the results are like a D90 at 1600ISO, scaled down it equates a D90 at  ~ 1000ISO. For normal usage (web, small prints) perfectly OK.

AF: I never used Auto selection, but the D800 changed that. When shooting a face it locks on the nearest eye. Perhaps in 98% of the case it makes the same decision I made only faster. I can concentrate more on the composition and let the camera figure out the rest.

Moiré: Yes, it exists. But the Moiré brush gets rid of it. I customized this brush by adding +12 saturation and after a quick swipe with this tool it is gone. It is important that you know where to find it, otherwise you might miss it.

Exposure: Very different from the D90. Spot metering is spot metering, you have to be very careful to pick the right spot. Matrix metering looks a bit underexposed sometimes, but it is not a flaw: It tries to preserve highlights and thanks to the excellent noise characteristics you can pull up shadows to almost no end.

File-size: I always shoot RAW, current setting 14-bit lossless compression. This gives you ~90 pictures on a 8GB card. I will experiment a bit with these settings, perhaps using uncompressed files to speed up post-processing.

Still, it is not a beginner camera, you need a good shooting technique, good glass and a solid understanding of the principles of photography. The camera is so good, it mercilessly shows you your mistakes. It will make you a better photographer.

I researched a bit the Tamron 24-70, but 82mm filter size, a flimsy hood and pronounced onion patterns in highlights made me drop that thought.

The recently announced  AF-S 24-85mm 1:3.5-4.5 VR fits the bill. I would have preferred weather-sealing and a constant f/4 aperture, but for $/€600 not all wishes will come true. It has a rubber seal on the mount.

This brings me to the features:

• Rubber seal at mount (full metal)
• M -M/A (fulltime manual focus override)
• VR

Build

• Full plastic, Made in China
• Focus / zoom feel a bit rough, but operate precisely
• dual cam tube, no wobbling
• 72mm filter

Heck, why 72mm filter thread? (this went up from 67mm of the non-VR model)

AF-speed is good, slower than the 24-70. I’d say 2/3sec from close focus (38cm) to infinity. Barely audible when 1m away, very reliable, no hunting.

Vignetting, very little, less than 1 stop wide open and almost none at f/5.6

Distortion, slight barrel at 24 (12 in Lr4 correction), even slighter pincushion from 35mm upwards.

CAs need correction in Lr, but this is a one-click.

Pretty flare resistant, dead sharp in the center. Borders very good at f/5.6, some additional sharpening brings corners to center level. It seems to have some field curvature that prevents it from performing better in the corners, but not too pronounced.

Close focus, don’t expect too much, it doesn’t have near field correction, results are good, but nothing to write home about.

VR - 4 stops - no way. I’d give it 2 stops on the wide end and 3 stops on the long end. Note that this gives more handholdabilty than the 24-70.

Summary, good deal for the asked price. As I don’t shoot wide open much, this lens gives me everything I need for a third of the price of  the 24-70 (sorry for mentioning it so often, but it is simply the reference in this focal range). The small size and low weight make it preferable for landscape work: Better balance on the tripod and smaller profile in windy conditions. If you capture moving objects you would like to have a lens that is faster, but I ask if a 50/1.4 would do there an even better job

Sample images

As easy as it is to set up such a NAS, to get it work in simple home network with full performance is less trivial.

My internet access is via a Netgear modem/switch. Sleak device that works perfectly with my 100Mbit fiber connection (thanks numericable).

Problem: Such switches are 100MB only, so the NAS attached via this switch tops out at 10Mbyte/sec - disappointing.

Solution: Get a Gigabit switch. I opted for a Netgear GS 605 which supports 9K Jumbo frames. So I cabled the modem, the NAS and my computer to the switch. Then I activated Jumbo frames 9k on my network card and on the NAS. Much better speed, around 35MByte/sec.

Not the end of the story: With these settings I wasn’t able to connect to facebook anymore, all browsers timed out. Facebook doesn’t like big frames. So to access FB I would have to deactivate Jumbo Frames again… Jumbo Frames might also impair performance of VoIP, etc. - the normal internet connection is set for MTUs of 1500 or even lower.

Solution: Get a second network card. If your computer already has a Gigabit Ethernet which supports 9K Jumbo Frames, get the cheapest you can find. The new card will become the internet gateway.

After installing the new card, connectit directly to the modem/router. This is important, because it will then run in 100MB mode. This will make Windows prefer the 1GB card if it can resolve a peer via that connection.

With this connection I got over 65MByte/sec from the NAS - good.

Last tuning step: Make sure that the GB connection will not be used for internet connections: Go the properties of the GB connection and select the IPv4 compenent and open its properties. Select using a fixed IP and enter an address like 192.168.0.201 and no default gateway. 201 is outside the DHCP range I configured in my router.

Now everything works as expected, hope this is helpful for you

Well it is relative. When you compare it to a D7000 - the pixel-density is the same: Crop-factor 1.5 yields 2.25 the surface and 16*2.25 =36).

So no worry about the lenses, when we disregard the border at larger apertures. Frankly, when do you need sharp corner when shooting wide open?

One inconvenience is the larger file size (up to 70MB), but considering that I bought my computer with a 500GB drive 2 years ago, and now a 2TB turns along with it - do we really have to care?

The D800 also features crop-modes that utilize only a smaller section of the frame, this will keep the file-size down when the resolution is really not necessary (beware: a DX crop transforms the D800 into a heavy D7000, it is not downsampling the whole sensor!).

Yes, it is that easy, but there are many out there who think (or don’t think at all) that so many pixel must come for a price. Indeed, they come, but the only price is the list-price of the D800(e).

Besides the storage issue, two arguments float around:

1. The pixel density is too high, diffraction will ruin the image, it is better to shoot with a lower pixel-count
2. Larger pixels perform better at high ISOs, better a lower pixel-count like in the D4

You know my drill, first the short answer and then the lengthy derivation:

1. Diffraction will only compromise details a lesser sensor won’t even resolve
2. You can downsample the file to reduce the noise almost perfectly equivalent to a sensor with larger photo-sites

Yes, I use pixels and photo-sites synonymously in this article

(more…)