Well, the terrible flu I mentioned returned, and a trip to the hospital landed me in the intensive care unit for a while.  It wasn’t the flu after all, but acute pancreatitis caused, it is thought, by previously undiagnosed diabetes.  It seems I’ll be living the remainder of my life at the end of a needle.

The whole hospital experience was thought provoking.  The queue times in the emergency room were very long.  Even being sick enough for ICU, it took 4 hours before I first saw a doctor and 9 hours before I was admitted to hospital.  For most of that time there was nowhere for me to lie down, and sitting up was quite difficult.  People with less severe conditions were waiting 12 or 13 hours to be seen.

Nicole actually suggested during my first attack (when I thought it was some kind of flu) that I should visit the emergency room.  It was the thought of spending the better part of a day waiting to be seen that caused me to resist.

Clearly there is room for improvement in our emergency room capacities, but that’s only one part of the picture.  The larger picture is that I was very sick and in urgent need of medical care.  I got the care I needed, and this being Canada, I came home with no added stress about how to pay the medical bills … aside from the medication and insulin I now need, there are none.

The system is not perfect, but I am ever so grateful that it is there.  The bottom line that when I fell, it was there to catch me.

I’ve been “Too fevered to talk” sick for much of the last week and a half, but am now in that “well enough to be irritated I’m not completely well” phase of recovery.

The illness interrupted my exploration of an old feed handling facility not very far from where we live.  The buildings are intact and cannot be (legally) entered, but there is wealth of rusty equipment to be explored outside.  What makes this particular rust so interesting is the story it tells via multiple layers of paint interacting with nature, both organic and inorganic.

Rust, paint, and organics

I’m looking forward to spending many hours exploring the photographic potential of this place.

We’ve been selling off our beekeeping equipment in preparation for becoming nomadic. The other day Nicole pointed out some beekeeping gloves hanging over the top of the shower after having been washed. I think it was the way they were shaped like hands that caught her attention. Myself I was more caught by the light, the rich colours of the leather, and the fine detail.

Hanging beekeeping gloves

I worked with them for half a day or so. This one got closest to satisfying me.

Beekeeping gloves

I worked it a little, burning in the upper right hand corner and reducing the tonal range of a small area of the bottom where the shower door was presenting some distracting sparkles, but ultimately I think the composition is just not what I was looking for.

Beekeeping gloves, processed a little bit

That old itch to be making photographs has been growing again.  Here’s one I’ve been eyeing for a couple weeks but only just made today.

I had a lovely, peaceful New Year’s Eve.  It was just Nicole and I, a bottle of dealcoholized wine, and a few donuts.  Earlier in the day we began a little game we’ve played before … I choose some interesting foods and she creates a meal with them (adding whatever she likes).  This time she’s got a celery root, a mango papaya, some wonton wrappers, lily sprouts, sliced water chestnuts, and some jalapenos to work with.   Tomorrow I’ll see what she comes up with.  I imagine it will be wonderful … it always is.

I brought the new year in with a new image.

Some Canon 5DII test results have been published, more or less confirming what I suspected … This $2700 camera produces hi quality images equaling Canon’s $8000 flagship.

Phil Holland’s comparison shows pretty much the same noise characteristics and detail between the two models.  Unfortunately he shows us the noise only in well illuminated parts of the images, which is not where it usually becomes a problem.

DXO has also measured the 5DII’s performance, and finds it ever so slightly lower than the 1DsII … slight enough that the difference is meaningless.

So like Nikon shooters, Canon shooters are left wondering whether professional features like higher frame rate, better weather seals, etc. are worth a $5000 premium (or somewhat less, looking at street prices).  But whereas Canon shooters can decide no, buy the more affordable model, and get that warm feeling that comes from saving $5000, Nikon users have no $3000 alternatives unless they sell their Nikon glass and change systems.

Both Nikon and Canon have excellent lens lineups, with neither being clearly superior to the other, although Canon’s is larger.  But though neither is better overall, one or the other might be better for a particular photographer, depending on that photographer’s needs.

I’ve thought a lot about switching since Nikon dropped its $8000 bombshell.   But the more I think about the lenses I use the most, the less attractive it seems.   Nikon has released some stunning glass this past year, and Canon has no answer to it.

I’ve been shooting Nikon’s 85mm tilt/shift lens for some years now, and have been wishing, almost praying, for wider angle alternatives.  It happened in January of this year … a new set of three was announced, and the optics are stunning … much better than Canon’s offerings.  Nikon also announced and then released a new 14-24 and 24-70 lens of such quality that Canon shooters are buying them for their Canon bodies.

Yes, I could buy a Canon body and use my Nikon glass on it, but there is a catch.  The adapters available will not pass autofocus signals between the body and the lens, and most won’t pass aperture control either.   Autofocus control I don’t care about … for this kind of work I’ll be focusing manually anyhow.

Aperture control is another matter.   Nikon’s recent glass is all of the G type, meaning that the aperture can only be set electronically.  I’ve found only one adapter that can handle this, and it does it by rotating the lens in the dapter.  I might be able to live with this with some of the lenses, though I’d lose the use of the scalloped lens hoods, but using it with the T/S lense would be impractical I think.

Is there a D3x in my future?  I’m still not sure.

Nikon D3x - $8000

Nikon users across the net have been busy in the forums since the announcement, mostly expressing their anger at Nikon.  Clearly they are feeling betrayed.  Perhaps more interesting though is the backlash against the backlash, mostly quite irrational.

One commonly expressed sentiment is “If you can’t afford it, you don’t need it.” Personally I can’t see any link at all between the need for something and the ability to pay for it.   Ask someone who has just lost his home for financial reasons if he suddenly doesn’t need one.

Another one is that if you are a professional photographer, you don’t need to think twice about buying one of these because you’ll pay for with a few days of shooting.  The idea seems to be that for any REAL photographer, this is just like a house builder buying a hammer.  There are at least two problems with this thinking.

The June 2006 PDN magazine reported the median income of a self-employed photographer at $57,500. “Median” means that half of those surveyed make LESS than this amount per year. Add a mortgage and a family to support to that equation, and an $8000 purchase is anything but trivial.  And lets not forget that this particular camera is clearly aimed at studio and landscape photographers. The median income for a fine art photographer was just $20,000. It’s not clear to me if these numnbers are gross or net, but I’d guess the former.

Then there is this implicit idea that unless you are a pro, you aren’t a real photographer and shouldn’t expect to use such tools anyhow.   Clearly people need a history lesson … many of the photographers we point to as the best in their time were not professionals, but amateurs.   The derivation of that word is relevant here:  An amateur is someone who does something for the love of it, not the cash.  Is it any surprise that many of the most famous photographs in history were made by such people?

Many of the anti-backlash people point out that not everyone needs more than 12mp.  That’s certainly true, but quite beside the point for those doing work that would benefit from it.

Many among the angry hordes are drawing comparisons to two other recently released cameras, the Sony A900, and Canon’s 5D mark II.  The former is built around the sensor that Nikon’s sensor is based on, and sells for less than half the price of a D3X.  The latter is a 21mp model that according to early reports produces images as good as Canon’s $8000 flagship, but lists at just $2700.

“You can’t compare these to a D3X!” many objectors are shouting, but of course you can, and many people clearly are.  The objectors will tell you that they don’t have the same features found on high end bodies … faster frame rates, weather seals, etc.  That’s quite true, and one of the things people will think about when they make the comparison.  Many are finding that for their use, the differences do not nearly justify the price of a D3X.  How many frames per second do you need for shooting landscapes, or doing product photography?

A big part of this conflict, I think, is that the real reason for the backlash is not often being expressed well, and therefor mostly not being understood by those who object to it.  Nobody is upset that Nikon has produced an $8000 camera.  If next year they introduce a $12000 MF camera, nobody will be angry at that either.

A set of high quality lenses is an expensive investment, and changing systems involves replacing it all, which can be expensive.   So buying a DSLR is not just a one time purchase … it is entering into (or continuing) a relationship.   Like all relationships, there are expectations.

Nikon users are angry because they have invested in the Nikon system, expecting Nikon to take care of their needs as the years go by, and they feel that isn’t happening.  Canon announced its first > 12 MP camera in September of 2004, more than four years before Nikon.  Nikon users around the world held their breath for last year’s D3 announcement, sure that at long last they would get more resolution … but they didn’t.  Nikon surprised everyone by introducing a camera that excelled at low noise, high sensitivity shooting.  It is a wonderful camera (I love mine) but it did not answer the need for higher resolution.  Speculation about a forthcoming D3X began immediately.

Hopes were high for PMA, but all we saw was a 10mp D60.  The rumours pointed to a summertime announcement, but all we saw in the summertime was a Canon announcement of the 50D, a 15mp model currently available for about $1100.   Nikon users still had nothing over 12mp at any price.  Nikon users prayed for pixels at Photokina …. and got silence from Nikon while Cannon announced a 21mp camera for $2700.

The rumour mill said “November, your prayers will be answered in November…” and people waited some more, and finally the announcement came.   The D3X appeared at last… 24mp… wonderful!  But wait… what’s the price?  $8000?   Most of them cannot afford it.  They look at Nikon’s historical flagship pricing, and they look around at the vastly lower cost of buying high resolution cameras from other vendors like Sony and Canon, and they feel profoundly betrayed.

Here’s the latest in a series of abstract leaf photographs I’ve been working on for a few months now.

Begonia Leaf

As usual, I’m all about the details.   Here’s a closer look…

Begonia Leaf Detail

Nikon D3x - $8000

So, the big announcement has finally come, and the new Nikon flagship, the D3X, should be hitting the streets before the month is out.  Let the rejoicing begin!

Or not.  The forums are crazy busy, as expected, but what are they discussing?   Not the new 24 megapixel sensor. which is what we’ve all been expecting for a long time now.  Not the other enhancements, because there don’t appear to be any substantial ones.   But the price.

Nikon Flagships have always been announced at US $5000.  I paid that much for my D2X, and again for my D3.   I wondered if the D3X would come in at a bit more, or if the D3 price would drop when the D3X showed up.

What I didn’t expect was a US$8000 price tag.   Taxes and exchange included, that’s a Cdn $11,000 purchase.

It has been my intention for some time to own this camera.  D3 for indoor/people work, D3X for studio and landscape work.  I never doubted it would happen.  But even though I could buy it, I’m really not sure I will.

My first thought, after I got past the OMG stage, was that Canon has had an $8000 flagship for some time, why shouldn’t Nikon do the same?  But the more I think about that question, the easier it gets to answer.

Canon’s 1Ds Mk III was announced at that price last summer.   At the time, if you wanted that quality, there were no lower cost alternatives.  At the time, flagship cameras not only offered pro quality build and features, they were also the only game in town for high resolution sensors.  It had been that way for some time.

Things are different now.  Nikon’s D700 has the same sensor as the D3, for considerably less money.  Canon’s new 5d Mk II offers 21MP for a list price of $2700, with street price soon to be lower as the initial demand tapers off, and Canonites are comparing the sensor favourably to the 1Ds Mk III.  Sony’s new flagship boasts the 24mp sensor that the D3X sensor is based on, for $2999.

Now some will point out that these sub-$3000 cameras do not have the build quality of my D3, and they are right.  Pro’s are used to paying a premium for faster recycle times, bigger buffers, better weather sealing, etc.  But it has never been a $5000 premium before, and the premium has always included a better sensor.  Viewed in the context of today’s market, this is the worst deal we’ve been offered in a while.

I’ve been shooting Nikon for more than a decade.   Yesterday I began the rather large task of becoming better aquainted with Canon’s offerings.  Depending on what I find, I may switch my more serious work to Canon.  I’ll probably write more about that soon.

The delicate appearance of my model’s skin here is exacly the sort of thing I was looking for when I decided to start shooting infrared.

Is too much sugar killing us?