I might be in Love (Carl Zeiss 24mm 1.8 mini-review)

Carl Zeiss 24mm f1.8 lens for Sony NEX
Image at f1.8
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

We have all read and heard by word of mouth, about the so-called “legendary” glass made by lensmakers, Leitz (Leica) and Carl Zeiss. (this is a gear-review and yet another gear-head blog. So for you artists, you may want to skip on and read this guy’s blog. ).

 

For more than 35 years, I have shot various 35mm SLR/DSLR cameras and lenses. For the most part, I have found the better (“pro”) Nikon and Canon glass hard to beat, with good contrast, color, sharpness, and where applicable, bokeh. Occasionally, one of the third-party manufactures would rise to the top (I owned a Tokina ATX 300 f2.8 prime that I think goes head-to-head with its Nikon-equivalent; and a Sigma 14mm f2.8—likewise). But with the possible exception of my original Takumar 55m and 135mm lenses used with my Asihflex SLR, I have never owned (or even shot) any of the “legendary” glass.

All I can say is, “wow”!

I wasn’t born in Missouri (my younger sister was). But I lived there during my first 2 years of life (formative?). And I have always been “from Missouri” on these so-called “legendary” lenses. Could they really be that good? Could they really be that much better? The price tags certainly suggest that they “should be.” My friend and mentor, Ray Laskowitz, has been telling me how I would like the Zeiss glass and how I would probably relegate the other lenses I have already acquired for my Sony Nex-6 mirrorless camera to “paperweight” status. Since they weren’t particularly high-end (the Sigma 19 and 30 primes I reviewed recently), and not particularly expensive, I didn’t doubt that he was right—about their status.

These images are only “snapshots”

Carl Zeiss 24mm @f11
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Sigma 19mm @f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

But in spite of the “hype,” what I did not anticipate was my near-visceral reaction to seeing the Zeiss-rendered images on screen! All I can say is: “wow“! On most of the illustrative images here, I did nothing more than to adjust the contrast slightly in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), and in only the case of the Redbud branch, selectively take the “brightness” down just a smidgeon. I also did moderate “capture” sharpening on all except the one labeled “unsharpened.” I have always been one to do some “cleanup” work in Photoshop and some selective sharpening and contrast adjustment and (yes, Al  ), boost saturation in many instances.

With these images I am finding myself resisting any changes to color, saturation and for the most part contrast.  There was absolutely no saturation boost (other than the addition of some “local contrast” adjustment in ACR) to any of these images.  And, they are sharp! The raw, unsharpened image of the Bradford Pear branch illustrates that (remember, it is at f2.8 and was taken handheld).

Sigma 19mm f2.8 @f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Equally impressive (and expected) is the soft, creamy bokeh of this lens. There is none of the unpleasant, circular out of focus areas I saw in the Sigma 30mm f2.8 when shot wide open. And, these images are pure snapshots. They are all handheld, taken quickly between trips to and from work during the week. I have spent but a few minutes with the lens, but cannot wait to get it out into the field and give it a real workout.

Carl Zeiss 24mm @f1.8; UNSHARPENED
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

This lens is less than a week old to me, and yet, I am pretty sure I won’t take it off the camera very often. And, this is not even a “true” Carl Zeiss lens (though it is supposed to have all Zeiss optics). It is a co-venture with Sony and is marketed and badged as a Sony-Zeiss lens. It has the Sony e-mount and focuses fast and silently on the Nex-6. In ACR, the lens correction is found, not under the Zeiss category, but under the Sony category (threw me for a loop at first, until it dawned on me to search the database for Sony lenses).

I did not anticipate my near-visceral reaction to the Zeiss-rendered images

I have yet to do any “apples to apples” comparisons (if that is even possible). The images here are as close as I can get but are at least a week (maybe 2) apart and so the subjects have “moved on.” But it is enough to be convincing, in my judgment. In fairness, the Sigma image of the Bradford Pear is at f3.2 and the Zeiss, at f11 (I was out “snapshooting” and didn’t have the presence of mind to take an image at f11 with the Sigma. Maybe I will find the time later on to try some of those comparisons. But I don’t really think it’s necessary).

For anyone who, like me, thinks this is a first class lens worth splurging for, there is even better news. Zeiss announced this month that it will offer a series of lenses aimed squarely at the APS sized sensor, mirrorless, market (currently only for Fuji and Sony). These lenses will not be badged or co-ventured. They are pure Zeiss, but will be designed to mount on these cameras and be fully functional with the bodies, including AF. I am in, Zeiss!

The “Sigma Pair”; Sigma 19 and 30mm f2.8 for Sony NEX

Sigma 19mm f2.8 @ f8
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Recently, I have been happily blogging here about my newest “toy.” I don’t want anybody to get the wrong idea; I am totally committed to my (so-called) “full frame,” FX, 36mp Nikon D800 and my “pro” f2.8 Nikkor lenses. I am not abandoning them by any means.  I do, however, see their use becoming more “focused” (yes, pun intended ). The “big gun” will still be carried into the field for serious landscape work and of course any of my limited wildlife and sports shooting. I will pack and carry it on my upcoming trip to the Mediterranean, but I see its use there more limited than originally thought.

There is more to the equation than sharpness

The NEX is just so beguiling. It is small and light, which is really nice, after carrying the DSLR around for so long (I can remember a time not so long ago when I actually favored the size and heft of the DSLR body). I spend a lot more time traveling these days. For just carrying around to many of the new places we visit, I can see the NEX being used much more conveniently–and more consistently.

But the proof is still in the image quality results. And for me, the jury is still out. I am “experimenting” with different lens combinations, and shooting scenarios. Nothing “scientific”; just kind of empirical experimenting. And, as such, after reading the reviews in a number of different places, and learning of the B&H deal to purchase the pair for $199, shortly after receiving my NEX,  I ordered up the Sigma f2.8 19 and 30mm e-mount lenses. For anyone who has ever purchased camera lenses, you know that is in “junk bond” range. But the reviews were mostly positive, so it seemed like it was worth taking a “flier.”

Why? There is, in my view, little not to like about the Sony 15-50 f3.5-5.6 lens I bought with the camera. The 35mm equivalent of this lens matches pretty much to my Nikkor 24-70 f2.8, but at 1/10 of its size and nearly weightless, it is very compact and easy to carry. It is reasonably sharp, renders good color and contrast. However, at its modest wide open aperture, there is little room for creativity. It should be a fine working lens for “reportage” style shooting (capturing the daytime cities, buildings, and activities). It appears to be at its sharpest right around the f8 range (though my non-scientific testing seems to tell me this isn’t a critical issue) and this will work for daytime shooting in most instances. But here was a reasonably inexpensive opportunity to try two fixed aperture f2.8, fixed lenses.

Sigma 19mm f2.8 @ f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

The “pixel peepers” will immediately note that the Bradford Pear in bloom image; shot at a fairly wide avenue, suffers from many variations in sharpness at different depths of field.  I don’t find the result “bad,” but it is certainly not the kind of image quality I would expect from a higher end lens–at least not at a very close viewing distance.  The isolation shot of a shoot of blossoms is a perhaps less difficult test and shows the estimable capability of this inexpensive optic to create reasonably nice bokeh with decently sharp areas of an image even with relatively shallow depth of field.

Sigma 19mm f2.8 @f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

The low light capability of “fast” lenses is less of a factor today

Still, it’s hard to go wrong with these lenses for their modest cost. They are both about the same size and weight. Both are larger (nearly 2x as long as the 16-50) and therefore slightly less convenient, but not by much. They are still much smaller and lighter than their 35mm DSLR equivalents. They are not going to win any awards for build quality or beauty of construction. Externally, they are all-plastic, and I would guess they are plastic wherever metal or glass are not required. This makes them lightweight, but I would guess, not particularly durable. I hear stories about photojournalists and traveling photographers who beat up their equipment. If you are in this business, you probably won’t be using these lenses anyway. I have known others like me, who seem almost proud of the fact that they beat their equipment up. I am not in that camp. My father and grandfather were engineers and master craftsmen, and both taught me from an early age to appreciate and care for your tools. I “baby” my photographic equipment, and durability will probably not be an issue, unless it is just mechanical build quality (when I first moved to AF camera’s I owned a Ritz Camera Brand Quantaray zoom lens. I think it was one of the sharpest and nicest lenses I ever owned. But I took two of them back because the focusing motor/gear gave out within a year. Then I gave up).

All photographic gear is a compromise – no exceptions

I have read reviews (particularly on Amazon) about there being a “rattle” in the lens. If you rotate it lengthwise, you will feel a part that moves back and forth. I am told that this is part of the AF mechanism in the particular lens design. It doesn’t seem to affect the lens working or the images; so I am not bothered by it (particularly at a $99 price point). My friend, Kerry Liebowitz once said to me that “all photographic gear is a compromise—no exceptions.” Wise words. And for the rather modest cost of these lenses, I expect some compromise. I was not surprised at what I received (at this time, Sigma has completely re-designed both of these lenses, as well as bringing out some new offerings. I have not seen them. They are priced a twice the price of these 2 lenses, and I suspect the deal from B&H was tied to their knowledge that they were going to be older/discontinued models soon.  I expect that they will continue to be widely available on eBay and Amazon).

Over the nearly 40 years I have been photographing, the technology of lens manufacture has become so much better that the difference between a “cheap” lens and a very “expensive” lens is much less apparent. Indeed, there are those who assert that the $99 Sigma 30 is every bit as sharp as the $1100 Carl Zeiss e-mount lens. Maybe (though I have my doubts). But there is certainly more to this “equation” than sharpness. In my view the Sony 16-50 is sharp enough for everyday use and if that were the only factor, I wouldn’t ever take it off the camera. The low light capability of “faster” (wider aperture) lenses was once a much more important factor than it is today, in my view. With the NEX capability of acceptably low noise images at very high ISO settings, it becomes less important.

Sigma 30mm f2.8 @f9
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

The 19mm (roughly 28 mm at the 35mm-equivalent on the NEX’s “APS” sensor) produces about what you might expect from a $99 lens from Sigma. The image of the church does not seem to me to be any improvement in terms of sharpness, color or contrast than equivalent shots with the Sony 16-50 lens has produced. So I will need other factors to cause me to use it over the Sony.

It’s hard to go wrong with these lenses at their modest cost

Now, the elusive concept, bokeh, becomes a serious consideration. “Faster” lenses should afford the ability to use selective focus (by intentionally creating or leaving out of focus areas in the image) to make creative images. Indeed, it may well be the difference between “making” and “taking” photographs. The bokeh of both these lenses is “better” than the Sony 16-50 (which is to be expected, both from the fact of the wider aperture, and the fixed focal length). Is it good enough? I think a lot will depend on the image and the lighting. I think the bokeh on the 30mm (45 at 35mm equivalent) is marginally better than on the 19mm. I do see some (almost unpleasant) circular out of focus areas, though, on the daffodil images shot at large apertures. Still, the sampling is small, and I will continue to carry them and play with them.

Sigma 30mm f2.8 @f2.8
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Would I recommend them? That’s a harder call; but probably. If your budget is tight, they are your “gateway” to e-mount, AF, relatively fast 2.8 fixed lenses for the NEX. If your budget isn’t tight, they are a pretty low-cost way of seeing what the NEX sensor will do with such lenses (unless, of course you have already budgeted for and will be able to immediately get the Zeiss lens). I suspect that I will eventually “replace” these lenses with something of higher quality, but time and experimentation will tell. I have the Carl Zeiss 24mm f1.8 e-mount lens for the NEX on the way.  This lens is actually badged as a “Sony” lens but is marketed as a co-designed Carl Zeiss Sonnar T lens.  I believe that what this means is that it is Zeiss glass (Sonnar optical design is patented Zeiss technology) and a Sony focusing motor and e-mount.  I’ll know more, of course, when I have it “in hand.”  I am looking forward to mounting it on the camera and seeing what the extra aperture will do and if that “legendary” Zeiss glass will really outshine the cheaper glass. I am also watching for reviews of the announced Sony 35mm, f1.8 e-mount later this year. Those could easily be replacements for these two lenses. I will surely be reporting back in over the next months on this subject.

“Playing with NIK”

Fisherman’s Wharf, San Francisco
Copyright 2011 Andy Richards

My photographic imagery is 98% “traditional. I don’t generally experiment with special techniques. I try to portray what I “saw” in the field.  I don’t mean to say that this is the same thing as “reality.” Most of my landscape work is really intended to be art. I am not aware of any rule that says that photographic “seeing” in these conditions must match reality. Instead, I aim for what I saw in the field, or sometimes what I saw as a possibility in the field.

When I use the word “photorealistic” I mean what our eyes (and mind) might see, shown in a “traditional” photographic presentation

Nonetheless, I still believe 98% of the images I create are “photorealistic.” In other words, they are designed to look and appear as traditional photographic images.

High dynamic range (HDR) software is (or was, for a time) “all the rage” for some photographers. In my own view, it was more often than not, grossly overused and often produced garish results that the creator called “painterly.” My own very occasional use of HDR software (I prefer Photomatix) has been mostly for sophisticated blending of individual digital captures, with a goal of creating a “photorealistic” result. I blogged about this on 2 other occasions, first introducing the topic in my March, 2009 blog, “High Dynamic Range Photography,” and later “Managing Dynamic Range Digitally (a comparison of HDR conversion methods and software)” in September of 2010.

When I use the word “photorealistic” in this context, I don’t necessarily mean what was physically, electronically or chemically possible, but rather, what our eyes and minds might see, shown in a “traditional” photographic presentation.

I do appreciate that what many of us do, as photographers, is art. And art doesn’t have any pre-determined borders, in my view; even in a “traditional” photographic context. As such, I am not against trying new things in an effort to present an image in its best light.

Last month Google created an opportunity for owners of Nik products to “upgrade” to the entire suite. I took advantage. As I find time and opportunity, I have begun to explore some of the “preset” formulas in this set of plug-ins to Photoshop (and Light Room). The bread and butter parts of the suite for me have been Dfine noise-reduction software, Nik sharpener, and Viveza.

Fisherman’s Wharf; San Francisco
Copyright 2011 Andy Richards

Color Efex Pro is also part of the suite. Color Efex Pro is essentially a set of preset filters. As such, I have used it only sparingly and only for a very small handful of the many filters available. The graduated neutral density filter is by far my favorite, and the one that gets the most use. It just does a better job in a very short time period than any blending I can do on my own (including the estimable counterpart in Adobe Camera Raw). But with the Nik U-point control points and a great deal of adjustability in how all of these filters are applied, it is a pretty diverse set of filters. I have generally eschewed the filter called “details enhancer.” This is partly because I have seen it overdone so much and it reminds me of the garish HDR images referred to above, and partly because I think the “structure” adjustment in Viveza 2 and in Nik Sharpener is so much better, and so much more subtle.

Art doesn’t have any borders, even in a traditional photographic context

But recently, I was working on the image here and decided I would take a test run though some of the Color Efex filters. Suddenly, I found an image that I thought the details enhancer filter was well suited for. You can see the difference in the before and after images here. The traditional photorealistic presentation, is, in my view, unremarkable. It just doesn’t seem to have any punch to it, either artistically or visually. But the moderate use of one of the preset details enhancer filters transforms this image into what appears to me to be like a nice oil painting.

Over time, I am certain to experiment more and more with some of the “artistic” options in the Nik software. I probably won’t often say this, but thank you Google for making this suite of software so attainable recently.

How to make a DMCA Takedown Request

History of the DMCA

First, I want to make a couple of not necessarily obvious points about the copyright laws in play here (my title may seem a little misleading, but I will get there, I promise.  For those who don’t want the background, scroll down).  The DMCA was, in part, an amendment to the already existing U.S. Code/Copyright Laws. There are two important points to understand here, as a copyright holder:

• The U.S. Supreme Court has been pretty clear in pointing out the underlying rationale for the copyright law and its Constitutional authorization is not primarily to protect the rights of individual copyright holders! That comes as a surprise to many photographers. The underlying rationale was to promote innovation and “useful arts” for the good of the public. The limited protection (depending on when the right was first created, for the life of the author plus 70 years – 50 years if before 1978) given by the copyright act is designed as an incentive to artists and inventors. As such, their rights are fairly strongly protected, but any court finding will be primarily based on “the interests of the public.” This will be seen most significantly in “fair use” cases.
• The DMCA is not a law which was enacted for holders of copyright to enforce and protect their claims. The DMCA gives ISPs “safe harbor” protection from damages claims by copyright holders, if infringing materials were unknowingly posted on their sites. The reasoning for this law is really pretty obvious. With thousands of patrons, it would be physically and economically impossible for an ISP to police whether posted materials were copyright protected and the act of posting was an infringement (this is particularly true because a copyright arises with original authorship, whether or not registered with the USPTO). The ability for copyright holders to hold the ISP responsible for the mere hosting (without knowledge of a violation) of materials subject to copyright would be onerous and could—effectively—shut them down.

A DMCA Takedown Request or Notice is not a claim for damages against the infringer

In 1998, in large part in response to the proliferation of the internet and the ease of copying others’ copyrighted material for personal use and distribution (a/k/a, theft), Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The main purpose of the DCMA was to implement some World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Treaties, recognizing that with the internet, we no longer were able to police within our “borders.” In a sense, the internet has become the new “frontier.” A secondary, but serious, issue the DCMA addresses is the concern that an internet service provider (“ISP”) could be held liable for copyright infringement of their patrons by merely providing the means for posting. The DCMA provides a safe-harbor for ISP’s, exempting them from liability for the actions of their patrons unless they are a knowing participant.

This latter part has created a tool for owners of IP rights. The so-called “DMCA Takedown Request” has become an offense tool, to be used when the owner discovers that their IP rights have been infringed. It works. Most of the major, legitimate providers have established user-friendly takedown request procedures that can be done on line. Last week, I took advantage of the procedures for Google for Google+ and Blogger, for Pinterest, and for WordPress. Each has responded rapidly, in the manner I had hoped and anticipated. Unfortunately, there are some other providers who have made the takedown requests more difficult (I will leave you to your own conclusions why).

In 2000, a group of music industry companies sued Napster, an online “peer to peer” file sharing network under, among other laws, the DMCA. The Federal Court found that Napster was a knowing participant in the outright theft of digital music files. It was essentially shut down (and ironically, later reincarnated as a legitimate online music store). Shortly thereafter a series of additional cases shut down Napster “look-alikes” (e.g., Grokster) in serial fashion. The cases are fascinating reading, and underscore just how unprepared Congress and the courts were for the unprecedented technology and “everyman” access the internet and digital electronic devices have brought. The beat goes on. We will likely see additional litigation in these areas in coming years.

Pinterest is a site of particular interest to photographers. On the surface, it has, to me, the “look and feel” of a Napster. But my research indicates that they have acted in good faith to make sure they are not in the same category as the Napster/Grokster setups. Both Napster and Grokster openly encouraged pirating and unpaid, unauthorized use and sharing of files. Indeed, Grokster bragged about its position as the “Napster substitute.” In their holdings, the courts found ample evidence of this intentional conduct. Pinterest, on the other hand, has responded that it does not intend for its users to infringe on the rights of owners of IP rights. And in fact, I can report that they quickly and efficiently responded to my DCMA Takedown Requests, using there online process. Of the ones I have used, theirs is the easiest and most user-friendly. And, they will take down multiple occurrences of one image (where technologically possible) with one request. The Pinterest Terms of Service (“TOS”) make it clear that you post on your “board” at your own risk that you are violating copyright or other IP rights and laws. It is also my understanding that they have released code which photo website users on sites like Flickr™, can install that blocks Pinterest users from using the “pinit” function (it is in the Flickr settings). Do all these things effectively shift liability away from them? Given the broad, safe-harbor protections of the DMCA, my answer is: probably.

And what about Facebook? Facebook has really become the standard of use on the internet. Others have tried to go head to head (Google +), but arguably, none have been successful. It is very easy to repost an image (in fact, I am guilty of it myself). My understanding (which is admittedly shallow) of the FB inter-workings is that things that were meant to have limited distribution often show up in unsuspected public areas. There is a pretty confusing labyrinth of “privacy settings” in the module. Facebook does, however, have a DMCA Takedown Request Form which appears to be functionally similar to the one Google uses, and can be filled out online. The easiest way to get to it is to type “DMCA” in the help box and then scroll down to the link and click on it. Follow the prompts from their.

A number of concerns remain. First, who reads the TOS? I would suppose it might be right around 2% of users. That may be high . Second, sites like Pinterest, and other possibly other “lookalikes” who are less concerned about the DMCA takedown process, still make it awfully easy to infringe. Just install the “pinit” (or similar) button to your browser and any time you see something you like, point you mouse and click “pinit.” It seems awfully easy to facilitate infringement without actively encouraging it—whether intentionally or not.  I am not suggesting that that makes Pinterest, or others the “bad guy.”  Rather, I am pointing out how we as owners of intellectual property rights must continue to be vigilant.

How to Make a DMCA Takedown Request

The legal grounds for this can be found in Section 512 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code (generally known as U.S. Copyright Law/Act). As noted above, the DMCA is not an act designed to directly aid the owner of the copyright in pursuing a claim against the infringer (that is found elsewhere in the code). As such it is important to understand that a DMCA Takedown Request or Notice is not a claim for damages against the infringer. That would, generally, have to be done in a lawsuit directly against the infringer.

The DMCA requires the ISP, upon notification, to “respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing

What the DMCA Takedown Request procedure does is—in most instances—produce rather immediate action by the service provider. This is because section 512 protects the ISP from liability to you only if they do not have actual knowledge of the infringement. Once they receive a notice from you, they have actual notice and are required to take action. Sections 512(c)(1)(A)ii) and (c)(1)(C) require the ISP, upon notification, to “respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing ….

The DMCA sets out 7 requirements for a Takedown Notice to be valid:

• There must be a written request. An email, or filling out the site’s own form will satisfy this requirement
• The request must be signed by the owner of the copyright or her designated agent. The act specifically authorizes an “electronic signature.” While there is plenty of ambiguity over what exactly constitutes an e-signature, the bulk of the law out there on it confirms that if it is intended to be a signature, it will comply. The forms on most sites require that the e-signature exactly match the name of the copyright owner or agent filled in the form
• The claimed infringed work must be identified, and generally, some form of proof of ownership or agency given. My experience with the forms indicates that most ISPs will be satisfied with a url link to your site or someplace where you have the image legitimately posted
• The claimed infringing material must be sufficiently identified so the ISP can find it, review it, and remove or disable it. If it appears on more than one place, it would be a good idea to identify each and every place (a cautious approach may be to prepare or fill out a notice for each instance). Pinterest has a checkbox authorizing them to remove every instance where it appears on their site.
• Information reasonably sufficient to permit the ISP to contact the infringer. As a practical matter, when this appears on the ISP site, in most cases, it is associated with the infringer’s own account and this is not an issue. However, this may be the single most difficult requirement. Sometimes it is very difficult to find information about who is behind the curtain. I had a WordPress infringer who I could not identify from her Blog. Fortunately, since it was a WordPress.com sponsored Blog, they had that information and their Takedown Notice form worked.
• The notice must contain a statement that you have a good faith belief that there is an unauthorized, infringing use. In most cases, that will be self-evident to you. The one instance where that might be an issue is if there if “fair use.” In that case, you may want to consider, carefully whether you make the request. There is a “counter-notice” procedure that the infringer can use if they believe they are not infringing (e.g., because they are entitled to “fair use”).
• Finally, the act specifically requires that you put a statement in the notice that you are signing it, you are authorized, and that it is accurate, under penalty of perjury.

The key, here, is that the last thing the ISP wants is to be monetarily or otherwise liable to you. Most of them have set up turnkey online request form systems, and in most cases, my responses have been in a 12 hour or less time period.

Finally, I think there is a need to comment about “fair use.” In keeping with the stated constitutional and congressional aim; to benefit the public, courts have been careful about enforcing copyrights in such cases. Generally, “fair use” arises in the context of use of another’s copyrighted work without permission for the purposes of criticism, parody, scholarly research, and educational endeavors. But this does not mean that if you assert one of these reasons, you have an automatic exemption from copyright protection. If challenged, the burden of showing “fair use” as a defense will be on the infringer. The courts generally review “fair use” claims under 4 standards. It is clear from the statutory language that they consider all 4:

• The purpose and character of the use
• The nature of the copyrighted work
• The amount and substantiality of the portion used
• The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of the copyrighted work

Thus, when your image is stolen, arguably the entire work is being used. If someone makes a critique of your image and the primary purpose of posting it is as illustration; that is probably fair use. But even there, the burden is on the infringer to show that they have not done so for other reasons (i.e., a “sham” critique). Even in an educational situation, there is a good argument that the very images being taken may have their best sales potential to the educational community or system. It is certainly not an “automatic” that just because you are a teacher in a public school system that you can copy and post on a website, anything you wish.

It remains to us as photographers to be vigilant, check frequently for infringement issues, and take swift action to have them taken down. At the risk of being challenged for an infringement myself , lets be vigilant out there, people!

Are You Stealing Pictures?

I found this image posted and reposted without my permission over 30 times!
Copyright Andy Richards

Stealing. Theft. Larceny. Strong words, I know. But let’s call it what it is.

In the past couple weeks, I discovered some widespread copying, using, posting and re-posting of several of my photographic images.  I spent a couple hours making DMCA Takedown Requests / Notices. I resent having to spend my time doing that, but it has unfortunately become part of  today’s “e-world.”  I am learning that we need to be to be vigilant and pro-active about protecting our property.  Thanks to my good friend and great photographer, Carol Smith, a the heads up on this!

Part of the problem, of course, is that I am “preaching to the choir” here, as I assume most of the readers are sympathetic photographers. But perhaps there is a takeaway here.  As a group of “like minded” individuals (and I do realize how ironic it is that I am suggesting that a group of free-spirited artists might be like minded ) perhaps we can be more proactive about protecting our rights—and about educating our readers and visitors to our sites. Why do I feel so passionate about this subject?

Whatever you “don’t know,” there is one thing you undeniably do know: They are not yours!

Our U.S. Constitution empowered Congress to enact the U.S. Copyright Laws.  Article 8 provides that Congress may enact laws “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

Unlike objects of physical property, our rights to the images we make are intangible. We refer to this intellectual property (“IP”). But note the word “property” is still front and center. There is a common attitude that it’s not really something. It’s just a copy and when I take a copy of someone else’s image, I haven’t really taken it. They still have their original. That is simply incorrect and any reasonably intelligent person intuitively knows it. Use of images “found” on the internet without permission just doesn’t pass the proverbial “smell test.” It is still property. Someone else’s property! We do own it. And we do have a perfectly reasonable right to expect that others won’t appropriate it for their own use, no matter how “innocent” their claimed use may be.

The universal attitude seems to be: “if it is posted on the internet, it is free for the taking”

I continue to be surprised and dismayed at the (seemingly) universally prevalent attitude that “if it is posted somewhere on the internet, it is free for the taking.” The internet is not some vast, galactic “lost and found.” It is a virtual space. But just because it is virtual rather than physical does not negate the property rights we have in physical spaces. Not for a minute do I believe that the typical citizen, seeing my car parked in my own driveway, but with the keys in the ignition, would believe it is “o.k.” to jump in and take if for a spin (even if I should be “flattered” that they like my car enough to do that);  or, if my camera or phone was set down on a bench while I napped, that they could take it and keep it for their own use (or rifle through my bag as I slept)–at least not without acknowledging larcenous intent.  Indeed, I doubt a reasonable-minded person would think it permissible to come into my house or place of work physically, and download my images onto a thumb drive.

But if it is on the internet, these same (so-called) “reasonable-minded” persons have no shame about right-clicking and taking our images for their own use.  How is the end-result different?  Why is one method of theft “o.k.” and the other unthinkable? Is it that we really aren’t a moral society? Is it that we are all larcenous at heart, but we just don’t want to get caught?  Hmnn. I so want to believe (and hope) that isn’t the case.

The internet is not some vast, galactic “lost and found”

Part of it is technology. It is easy to do. It doesn’t require a great deal of effort or thought. It doesn’t cost anything. And the vast majority of uses are seemingly, innocent enough. It is just going to be my screensaver, or used to illustrate a point on my blog, or on my Pinterest™ site because I thought is was beautiful (more next week on Pinterest), or perhaps its even placed on an “educational” site.

None of the above makes it right! It is still someone else’s property. And when you take it, whether you know where it came from, or who the author is, or any other thing, there is one thing you do know. It is not yours!

Merely posting one of my images on your “educational” website is not necessarily fair use

When debating this issue, I encounter several popular arguments:

“I am not using it for financial gain; it is just on my computer as a screensaver. No harm, no foul.” Not really. If I take your car without your permission, use it while you aren’t using it, fill it up with gas and put it back in your driveway (all without your permission and probably without your knowledge, is that o.k. with you? No harm, no foul, after all). And, you are using it for your own financial gain. If you didn’t steal it from me, you probably would have had to pay for it. U.S. copyright law is very clear. That is financial gain.

“Sorry, I didn’t know it was yours. I’ll take it down.”  Thanks, I appreciate that. But…..nice try. I’ll give you that you didn’t know it was mine. But there is something you did know. You knew it was not yours.

“My use is ‘fair use”.’” Well. Maybe. But you better do your homework. Fair use can be criticism, parody, scholarly research and a use in the process of education. But fair use is a defense to an infringement claim. It is not a “safe-harbor” exception to the copyright laws. So you had better be able to demonstrate your “fair use” in the context of your posting. Merely posting one of my images on your “educational” website is not necessarily fair use.

“What’s the big deal?  Most People are flattered that people are putting their images up and getting them thousands of views by potential buyers.”  If you want to flatter me by showcasing my image(s), there is a very simple way.  Link to it!  That gets it views, while keeping it resident on my own site, where I get full credit and control over its use.  Or, just do the old fashioned, courteous thing which our digitally driven society has completely forgotten:  ask permission.

This Burton Hill, Vermont Image is another popular “theft” item
Copyright 2010 Andy Richards

I am not a professional photographer. I would count myself an advanced hobbyist photographer. I have sold some of my images, but I certainly don’t make my living from photography. Indeed, I don’t even come close to paying a fraction of the costs of this rather expensive hobby. But I have friends who do make all or part of their living from photography. To them, your unauthorized use of their image is not just theft. It’s taking food off of their tables and making it tougher for them to pay the light bill.

A fair question might be: what am I doing to prevent unauthorized access and protect my imagery? I have set up my SmugMug™ site so that a right-click will not allow copying the image and will instead give a notice that the image is copyrighted. That is easy enough to do. But it doesn’t stop a creative viewer from using one of the ubiquitous free browser add-ins to do a “screen capture.” I also know there is watermarking software available and most hosting sites offer it as an option. When I first set up my LightCentric Photography site, I put up images with watermarks. I almost universally hear that they watermarks detracted from the presentation of the photographs. If I am displaying photographs for sale, why would I continue to do something that might put off a possible purchaser? I understand that sites like Pinterest have code I can install to prevent them from copying from my site, and I will surely be looking into that. But isn’t it interesting how we have suddenly shifted the attention and blame away from the thief to the victim here?

For me, it is not so much a financial issue (don’t get me wrong, if you take one of my images that I sell, I am going to expect payment from you when I come knocking), but an issue of being wronged. I have never had the misfortune of someone breaking into my house and stealing things. But I know people who have. Their universal comment is that it is not the loss of those replaceable items—it is the feeling of being violated. It really isn’t any different when I see one of my images on the internet on a site or in an area where the thief didn’t even bother to ask my permission before his “innocent” use of the something she knew wasn’t hers!

There is a foreign hosted site that has this one up on a promotional page
Copyright 2010 Andy Richards

Next Week: How to Make a DMCA Takedown Request

The Sony NEX 16-50 “E-mount” Zoom

Barn
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Last week, I reviewed the Sony Nex-6 camera body. One of the interesting features of this line of Sony cameras is the large selection of third party lens adapters available, making it possible to mount almost any mount system lens.  While most of these lenses will use the camera’s auto focus (or any other “auto” features for that matter), they will work perfectly well in manual focus mode. There is some “quirkiness,” though. Neither the camera’s onboard information, nor the embedded EXIF information will give you the aperture value, the focal length or the shutter speed value. I used the manual metering system and the on-screen “real time” histogram feature to estimate exposure. And, it appears that on the lenses which do not have physical aperture settings, the camera will default to the smallest aperture and there does not appear to be any way to adjust that. On lenses with aperture rings, you will be able to set the aperture.  Sony does make an adapter for its own lenses (i.e., the A-mount series that mounts on its DSLR cameras) that will pass the autofocus and exposure information through to the camera body and vice versa.

I purchased the Rayqual adapter for Nikon “G” series lenses (these lenses do not have a physical f-stop selector ring, but are instead all chosen by one of the camera’s “command” dials). The G adapter will work with any existing compatible Nikon “F” mount lens (or any lens fitted to the Nikon F mount).  There are a number of manufactures that offer adapters, and reviews seem to suggest that quality of manufacture is all over the place.  The Rayqual was recommended to me by my pro friend and I thought it made sense to go with something known.  The guy at Cameraquest was very accomodating.

Of course, the camera’s “APS” sensor means you will have to apply the 1.5 field of view factor to the lens. But there are some very sharp, fully manual, older lenses out there (i.e., the venerable 50mm f1.8). I played around with a couple of my own Nikon lenses and found that in reasonable light conditions, focusing (either on the back LCD or in the viewfinder) is relatively easy.

Nikon 24-70; approximately 50mm ( 75 equivalent), f22, 100 ISO

My primary motivation for purchasing this Nex-6, though, was to find smaller, more convenient setup to use while traveling and while out walking around, that would give me image quality like I have grown to expect from my DSLR setups. The NEX has the promise of doing that, in my view. But using an adapter and manual older lenses may defeat that purpose. While they are fun to play around with, I don’t want to be doing that when I am on vacation in new places. I want to shoot and have reliably good quality results.

For that reason, the Sony E  SELP16-50 F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS zoom is a very attractive lens. The 35mm equivalent of approximately 24-75mm is a pretty useful range for “street” shooting and “walking around.” Of course, 28-300 would be nice (and they do offer that option), but it comes at the expense of size, weight, and … well, expense (the E-mount 18-200 is over $800). I don’t intend for this camera to replace my D800 DSLR. It is a significant upgrade replacement to my Canon G12, though and will undoubtedly get lots of use. As such I really wanted the 16-50 to be acceptable. It didn’t have to match up to the performance of my f2.8 Nikkors.

Sharpness:

I am pleased to say, I am pretty impressed, given the challenges the lens faces. The lens, fully retracted, measures only 1 1/2 inches long (there is a serious typo in the dpreview literature – though it would be amazing to have a zoom of this range that measured only 3/16 inches  ). The overall depth of the Nex-6 with this lens attached is a mere 2 1/2 inches! The lens is image stabilized (OSS), with a minimum focus distance of just under 10 inches. Its minimum aperture (depending on zoomed length) is between f22 and f36. It is a very lightweight addition to an already comfortably light and small body.  The barn above, was shot at 50 (75) mm at f16.  You can see that at those specs, the lens produces a relatively sharp, edge to edge result.  But how does it do at wider apertures, and at other focal lengths?  You can see in the image below of the white house that, stopped down, the lens performs nicely at its wide end (note that this was distortion-corrected in ACR using its lens database).  For daylight images, I cannot think of a reason not to stop the lens down to its “middle” ranges (f8-11-16), unless trying to obtain a specific DOF result.

16mm at f16

I will leave the technical specifications, like resolving power, distortion measurements, and other things to the technocrats and pixel peepers. My criteria was whether I was going to be able to bring home some “wall hangers,” using this lens. I think I can.

My non-scientific testing involved setting the camera up in my basement, mounted on a tripod using the same image, from a stationary position. I also used the IR remote to ensure no camera movement was involved. I am still trying to master the settings and particularly the AF technology on this little unit. To the best of my observation, the IR remote did not cause the camera to try to re-focus (which is a good thing).   However, as I glean more knowledge about the AF technology in this camera, I wonder if that is really what is happening.  From what I read, the default AF system in the camera works with “contrast detection” (as opposed to “phase detection” on most DSLR cameras).  What I am learning this means, is that the camera, when set to its AF setting, is constantly searching for a sharp exposure.  So, it may just be that in good light, the AF performance is just that good, and  and locked on when the remote triggered.

What I generally concluded was that there is little difference in sharpness from wide to small aperture and from short to long focal lengths. This is particularly true (as might be expected) in the center of the lens. But I am pleasantly surprised at the edge to edge performance. Granted, this combination is not going to be an architectural setup. Nor will it be up to the standards I generally expect from a “grand landscape” image shot with a “pro-specs” lens. But for its intended use, the results were very acceptably sharp and pleasant.  All images were at 100 ISO.

50mm @ f22

50mm @ f8

55mm f5.6

Since a common concern is whether these lenses are sharp at their longest lengths, I started there. I then tried some additional, varied settings of the same image:

16mm @ f3.5 (wide open with this lens)

16mm @ f3.5 cropped for center

16mm @ f22

23mm (approximately 50mm 35mm equivalent) @ f4

23mm @ f8

Distortion:

Sony 16-55 “uncorrected” at 16mm
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Other reviewers have noted that this lens suffers from significant distortion and some vignetting, particularly at the wide end.  The “before and after shots” here confirm this.  Both images were adjusted for contrast in my ACR raw image converter (Adobe Camera Raw), run through Dfine’s noise software and the default settings Pixel Genius’ “capture sharpening” engine.  They are otherwise uncorrected except that I applied the “lens correction” facility (again at its default settings) in ACR before opening it in Photoshop.  Some of the curvature can, of course, be attributed to the user.  A higher camera position would help here, if possible.  But you can see the pronounced curvature in the first image and the somewhat “tamer” curvature in the corrected version.  You can also see noticeable vignetting in all 4 corners of the first image and essentially no trace of it in the corrected image (no filters were used in this example, by the way, so this is the “bare” lens being demonstrated).  Sony is aware of this issue.  Again, I am not an engineer (and the world is a better place because of that ) but it is my understanding that this is a design issue that cannot be overcome at this point (somebody will figure it out some day).  This is physically a very short lens for its zoom range, and also small, working on a larger sensor than many of these smaller lenses have used in the past.  To “combat” these issues, Sony has firmware in the camera that “corrects” for this.  For Nex users that are using one of the earlier models (Nex-3, 5 or 7), it is my understanding that it will be necessary to upgrade the firmware to take full advantage of this.  Caveat:  the Sony firmware correction will only work on jpg files.  For those of you shooting jpg (there is a 10-step program for you out there ), I understand from what I have read, that this works very well indeed.  For the rest of us, some correction in post-processing will be necessary.  Adobe has done a great job of incorporating lens correction algorithms in their Light Room and ACR modules, including this lens.  I don’t have any familiarity with other raw converters or post-processing software, but it would not surprise me to find something there.  I consider the “corrected” image somewhat “normal” for this type of image, at the selected focal length of 16mm (24mm at 35mm-equivalent).

Sony 16-50 “lens-corrected” in ACR
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Bokeh:

For the few who don’t already know this, the word actually comes from the Japanese, “boke,” and refers, in loose translation, to blur.  For photography purposes, it is usually referred to as the aesthetic quality of the out of focus areas rendered by the lens.  With regard to this particular lens, I can only really refer to the last 2 letters of the word in describing my reaction to the 16-50′s Bokeh:  ”eh.”  :-).

Seriously, as I have said previously, it is a multi-purpose zoom in which Sony is trying to accomplish an awful lot of engineering, including a wide focal length range, reasonably wide apertures, and above all, very small footprint.  Given its modest price and versatility, I think they have done admirably well.  I think it would be unrealistic to expect it to stack up again virtually any prime lens and particularly the Zeiss glass or any of the Leica, Nikon, Cannon, Zuiko, Voightlander, or other “legacy” lenses that can be fitted via an adapter.  As part of my overall purchase, I picked up the pair of Sigma-manufactured e-mount f2.8 primes (19mm and 30mm).  When I get a chance to get in the field and do some real world testing, I hope to report on them. for now, here are two “test” examples.  Images are not very exciting, but given the time of year here, they are what I have to work with .  The first image is at the widest end of the lens, wide open.  The second is at the longest focal length, again, wide open.  I did not do any sharpening on these two images, so they are pretty much what you see is what you get (other than whatever PS did during the jpg conversion and resize, and I can say they looked pretty sharp on my screen as they came out of ACR).

Sony 16-50 @ f3.5; 15mm
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Sony 16-50 @ f5.6; 50mm
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

I used the same default “capture sharpening” using Pixel Genius’s “Photokit Sharpener,” and identical contrast and local contrast adjustments in ACR on all the illustrated images.  I did not do any other sharpening.

While the light was not quite as nice on the final image, I wanted to include it to show that the lens is decently sharp at the wide setting and its wide-open aperture, too.  With appropriate “creative” sharpening in post-production, I can see that this lens will produce very acceptable images.

16mm @ f3.5

My Review of the Sony Nex-6

Barn
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

I have been casually watching and reading about mirrorless, interchangeable lens camera systems since they first came out, playing around with the Nikon 1 and the Sony Nex-3 at my local big box store. Especially when you travel, or attend public events or places, it is hard not to wish for a system which is compact, sheds the bulk and weight, and is less conspicuous. But for me, main negative has been that the small sensors simply haven’t been able to generate the image quality that we now take for granted in modern DSLR cameras. In July of 2011, I reviewed the Canon G-12, a part of the Canon G-series cameras that have been used by some pro’s as backup cameras. I purchased the G12 couple years back, wanting a compact camera for those times when the DSLR just wasn’t convenient or wasn’t going to work in the situation. Following my review, I cruised the Caribbean for a week and carried only the G-12. I thought it performed well for normal daytime lighting situations. Unfortunately, much of the imagery I seek is in low and other challenging light conditions and I found the the small sensor performance in low light/high ISO conditions to be essentially unacceptable. I think the G-12 at the time it was introduced was probably the best sensor of its size.

It’s hard not to wish for a system which is compact, sheds the bulk and weight, and is less conspicuous

About a year ago, I learned that the Sony Nex series of cameras used the same APS-size sensor that many DSLR cameras use (indeed, I am told it is an updated and improved version of the very same sensor found in the estimable Nikon D7000 — in fact, what I am reading is that, as good a performer in the low light, noise handling area as the D7000 is, the NEX sensor is noticeably better!). That information piqued my interest in a less “casual” way. I began to research this camera and ask questions. I looked at the NEX-5 at a camera show last Fall. My biggest concern back then was the “investment” in body, add-on viewfinder, and lenses. The Nex-3 and Nex-5 (their first offerings), had no viewfinder. For me, that is a deal-killer (see below). If you want a good quality viewfinder, it is an expensive add-on option to the 3 and 5 models (a very impressive little viewfinder, I might add). It just seemed to me that the combination, for a second, “walkaround” camera was too much of an “investment” for this hobby photographer. The Nex-7 added a very impressive OLED (“organic light emitting diode) viewfinder, and some more conventional control dials. Both the Nex-5 and 7 have “touch screen LCD’s on the back. The Nex-7 has a 24 megapixel sensor and a couple other software bells and whistles than the 6. Otherwise, the 6 and 7 appear to be functionally identical.

The Nex-6 appears to have hit the “sweet spot” for serious shooters

There appear to be other alternatives, including the “micro 4/3″ sensor, which is larger than the sensor found in the G-12 or the Nikon-1, and is reputed to be a “better” aspect ratio design for the smaller lenses that are made for these cameras.  My own research tells me that the APS sized sensor still has an edge over these smaller sensors.  There are also APS sensor mirrorless offerings from Fuji and Canon, Pentax, and Leica (and recently a wide angle, fixed lens model from Nikon).   Various factors ruled them out for me.   I will say that one disadvantage of the Sony system–at this point–is that they lag behind the others in variety of lens offerings.  But the Nex-6 has the very same sensor that Nikon puts in its D7000.  Together with ergonomics, price and some of the factors discussed below – this was the “deal-maker” for me.

The Nex-6 appears to have hit the “sweet spot” for serious shooters like me. Introduced with Sony’s newest “kit” lens, the 16-50 3.5 -5.6 in a very diminutive package, it has a 16 mp sensor, a retro-styled “mode dial” and dual control dials (top and back) much like those found on many current DSLR bodies. It has the same bright OLED viewfinder as the 7, and for the first time, a standard sized hot shoe (the 3,5, and 7 all have a Sony proprietary shoe that is not quite standard size). The controls appear logical and are nicely laid out. There are not so many of them that it is daunting to figure out how to fire up an use the camera immediately.  Importantly, I believe that with its ability to fit my Nikon lenses, it can now act as a backup to my D800 system in an emergency.  At the same time, I now have a camera that won’t sit in a bag and gather (expensive) dust while depreciating in value.

Here is my (non-exhaustive) roundup of the Nex-6′s most prominent features and some of my thoughts:

Available Documentation

In a word: Awful (this will most likely be my only really negative comment – and aside from the shipped documentation, is not a knock on the camera).

I am just asking that they cover the essential issues for the serious photographers to whom they clearly aimed this camera

The documentation that has shipped (both hard copy and the more modern PDF downloads from CD or the website) with almost any electronic for the last 20 years has been uniformly bad. That may be a good thing for the proliferation of writers and publishers that produce third party “missing manual” style books. But even the poorly written manuals that are in the box or available on the website usually give us at least the necessary information to understand how the basic functions work. The Nex documentation doesn’t—in my view—even do that. They have a plus-100 page downloadable manual and a similar “guide” (hard to tell any difference from my review). Neither of them logically explain anything more than the obvious (pointing out, e.g., where the power switch is; you know: the one that says both “on” and “off” on it? ), and then delving, in a superficial way, into ample coverage and explanation of all the “gee whiz” special modes and jpeg-only, features. I am not saying they shouldn’t explain those features (this is likely a camera that will appeal to and be purchased by a broad spectrum of users). I am just asking that they cover the essential issues for the serious photographers they clearly aimed this camera at.

The Nex line is touted as a highly sophisticated compact camera, suitable even, for professional use (and indeed, I know of one very talented and experienced professional who uses them daily). One must-have feature for any serious photographer—in my view—is the ability to capture in raw format. Yet the 2 downloadable pdf manuals are completely silent about which features and functions work and which do not work when shooting raw. And, there is a dearth of third party reading at this point.  One third-party book (admittedly an older book by David Busch and Alexander White, covering the Nex 3 and 5) is hit or miss on the subject. The title of Jerod Foster’s “Sony NEX-6: From Snapshots To Great Shots” should have tipped me off that this wasn’t really a book about the camera – but I downloaded the Kindle version anyway– A disappointment.  I am not saying there isn’t a place for these books.  But they are all written, in my view, as if the purchaser just purchased his first ever digital camera (maybe even first ever camera that was a step above his cell phone).  And in these “series” books written by the same author, they contain 85% generic information about how digital cameras work, exposure, f-stops, rudimentary comments about raw, how autofocus works, etc. (I just finished another one on the Nikon D800.  The author just cut and pasted 1000′s of words from his other so-called “camera-specific” books. I have read 3 of his books now and the sense of deja vu is “deafening”).  Seriously?  The D800 or the Nex-6 is the “first” camera a purchaser buys to “learn” how to photograph?  I have my doubts.  There is a book slated for publication in September. I will look forward to obtaining a copy to see where the authors go.   I am still looking for a third party a book explaining the functions and features of the Nex-6. Magic Lantern, where are you? (rant over )

General Ergonomics and Body

Several hackneyed sayings about “old dogs and new tricks” and “old habits and dying hard” come to mind here. But I am an “old-school” shooter (at least as old school as the 1970′s SLR shooters). I “grew up” with a TTL viewfinder, match-needle metering, manual focus lenses, and mechanical control dials on the camera body. The Nex-6 body was designed with that kind of “old school” in mind. The new top mode dial, (ala the similar controls on the later—venerable, but long-in-the-tooth—Canon G-series and the Nikon D7000 series), is a nice “comfort food” feature. It controls the so-called shooting mode (PASM, etc.), which are all menu functions on the other Nex cameras. Directly underneath it (mounted on the same axis and slightly larger in diameter) is a control dial. There is another control dial on the back. This is a lot like my Nikon layout (sans the front control dial), and thus familiar. I like that.

The Nex-6 body was designed with the “old school” shooter in mind

This camera, much like the Canon G-series did, feels comfortable in my hand. The right-hand grip is nice and the body has an almost leather texture. While some with larger hands may find the space between grip and lens tight, it is a tradeoff for the compact size of the camera that I think is worth while. The camera is just 2 1/2 inches deep from viewfinder to lens cap (with the 16-50 attached), 5 inches wide from d-ring to d-ring, and 2 3/4 inches high from the base to the top of the mode dial on the top right. It has a nice “heft” without being an anchor. The top control dial is easily reached and manipulated by the right thumb, as is the rear dial. This means with a little acclimation, you can make essential settings without taking your eye from the viewfinder.

Most compact cameras have been, it seems to me, designed toward the P&S consumer market. The early Nex series is certainly no exception. The 3 and 5 are completely menu driven and totally reliant on the rear LCD screen. An electronic viewfinder (EVF) is available as an (expensive) add on. The “flagship” 7 has the same built-in EVF that is now on the 6 and has two unlabeled control wheels on top of the body (in practice I am told it doesn’t take log to acclimate to their functions).

The Sony OLED EVF takes some getting used to, but I quickly grew to like it

EVF

I have shot with a viewfinder for 35 years. While there may be something to be said for getting out of the comfort zone, in this case, the viewfinder lets me isolate and “see” my image. So for me on all my cameras, lack of a viewfinder has been a deal killer. The Sony OLED EVF takes some getting used to, but I quickly grew to like it. Unlike the traditional “rangefinder” cameras that had a mechanically coupled, but compeletly separate viewfinder, the EVF is, in essence, a “live view” TTL finder.  No parallax issues and “what you see is what you get.”  I am not sure what the coverage is, but I am reasonably sure it is 100%.  The EVF is very bright and because it is not a traditional “optical”  TTL finder, it can have some unique and useful behavior. As you rotate the command dials and change either the aperture or the shutter speed, the image in the viewfinder actually grows brighter or dimmer as the exposure solution is changed!  You “see” the image come into an approximation of correct exposure. Very cool.

Another nice feature (becoming more the norm – the tech just keeps getting “smarter”) is the automatic setting that senses when you bring your eye up to the viewfinder and turns it on and the back LCD off. You can override this behavior and even turn the LCD off completely to save on battery drain.

You can also set up the viewfinder to display the important information, including a horizon level indicator and, if you wish, a real-time histogram. And, of course the viewfinder—like my DSLR—shows essential information, like exposure, shutter speed and f-stop settings.  I have set the horizon level indicator in my viewfinder and it–unlike the ones one the back LCD (my G12 had it), actually works pretty well in handheld shooting.

The potential for lens selection and use with this camera appears to have little limitation

Lens Selection

Here is where the Nex series gets interesting. The potential for lens selection and use with this camera appears to have little limitation. In order to have all the offered metering functions, auto-focus, and some of the added features, you will, of course, need to have lenses with the proprietary Sony e-mount (Sony also offers an adaptor for their DSLR-mount lenses that will allow essentially all the functions). Sony currently offers 13 different e-mount lenses (I have oft-noted that these equipment reviews are my empirical and practical observations and are anything but technical. There is an abundance of commentary on the relative sharpness and other characteristics of these lenses and I’ll leave you to your own research on that topic). My Nex-6 came with the “kit” SELP1650, 16-50 f3.6 – 6.5 zoom.

Sony 16-50 “kit” lens:    It’s all a matter of perspective (pun intended). Against my Nikkor 24-70 f2.8, the 18-55 lens that has shipped as the “kit” lens on the prior Nex-series bodies is small and light. But for a compact camera, it’s still a bit chunky and the heft is noticeable. The new 16-50 is downright diminutive. About a third the length of the 18-55, it is also much lighter, making the Nex a (barely) “pocketable” camera (think cargo or jacket pocket – not jeans pocket).

Critics say it is not a “sharp” lens (those same critics often also criticize the 18-55). Lets face it. Its a relatively wide range, variable aperure zoom, at a mid-price range. There are going to be some compromises. I don’t have an 18-55 copy, so I cannot do comparisons. But my results on the 16-50 seem pretty good to me.  The barn at the beginning of this post was taken handheld, all manual (except for AF) with specs of f16 and 1/100 second.  But, I wanted to see how it would perform at wider apertures, so I did some of my own unscientific tests.  My conclusions are that as a practical matter, the lens performs very well at almost its whole range of apertures in terms of sharpness for general photography.  I use ACR in Photoshop and routinely correct for lens aberations, using their built in database, which seems to do very well.  I will cover this lens in my next blog, as this one is already too long.

The filter size for this newer lens is an odd, 40.5mm. The only filter I generally use is a polarizer. They are surprisingly expensive for this size. I did learn in my research that because of the way AF is accomplished in these cameras, a circular polarizer is not necessary. I was able to find a B&W linear polarizing filter for a reasonable price.

Non-Sony Lenses: Here is the exciting part. For a relatively small cost, you can buy a third party adapter and use a huge selection of lenses from virtually any lens manufacturer. This is all done fully manual, but the bright EVF makes focusing easy.  One challenge appears to be that my newer Nikon lenses which do not have manual aperture rings, will not allow me to choose my aperture.  For the most part, in my likely emergency backup scenario, I will be looking for maximum DOF throughout, which is a good think, because the NEX appears to choose the smallest aperture, and require you to vary the shutter speed.  Wind, of course, may well be a concern.  When the series first came out the native “e-mount” lens selection was very small, including only 2 lenses. The Sony selection has grown to several and is likely to continue to grow. And even better, some other manufacturers are now making lenses in the e-mount, including Sigma, and excitingly, Zeiss. It can only get better.

Function button

At first, I was perplexed by this button. It doesn’t behave at all like I expected it to. On my Nikon DSLR bodies, there is a function button that you can assign certain features to. When you press it, it performs that single task (e.g., on mine, I have it shift from averaging type metering to spot metering. The documentation, once again, is hopelessly unclear. So, it took me a while to figure out that on the Sony Nex, the Function Button really acts more like a “quick menu” submenu button, bringing up a short list of settings changes.  Unfortunately, customization here appears limited.  I cannot have the “quick menu” list the functions I want it to.  I have choose from their options.  Maybe a firmware update, Sony?

Other manufacturers are now making lenses in the e-mount…It can only get better

Rear LCD Screen

The generous 3 inch by 1 3/4 inch rear LCD screen is bright and clear. It articulates some (not as much as on the 3 and 5, because the addition of the viewfinder interferes with that). But it does pull slightly away from the body and tilts to a horizontal position for those who use it. I can see its usefulness in my own shooting style in those rare occasions where I might want to hold the camera out away from me.

The 5 and 7 have touchscreen capability. That is a useful feature, especially when using the features that might require inputting information into the camera. This would be particularly true if using some of the camera’s WiFi features.

The Nex-6′s WiFi capability should be a big deal, but for now, it appears to be “DOA”

My only concern is that I am one of those guys who has a near “reverence” for the beauty and maintenance of my equipment. It is rare for me to have a scratch, ding or other imperfection on any of my gear (no matter how old), and that big, exposed screen makes me nervous. I have added a screen protector (but I generally hate the things as they are a pain to apply and rarely look good).

Battery Life

This is a mildly “disappointing” area.  Battery life could be better.  There are a lot of electronics going to suck life from the small battery.  The AF on these cameras is contrast-detect oriented and by their nature, they are pretty much constantly “searching” for focus when AF is on.  I like to use the “review” features on the back of the camera, and tend to leave them on at longer intervals than is necessarily recommended.  The bright EVF viewfinder no doubt uses some energy from the battery.  I am philosophical about this one.  A spare battery and and external charger (the camera does not ship with an external charger, btw), is relatively cheaply acquired.

WiFi

You may wonder why this is relegated to the bottom and I don’t give it much coverage. The Nex-6 is the first Nex body to ship with integrated WiFi capability. This should be a big deal! But for now, it appears to be DOA. The reason is that its implementation apparently is rivaled only by the Sony Documentation I bashed above. I still haven’t tried it, as it sounds like those who have, universally say it is wonky, doesn’t work well and is generally a PIA. I guess the good thing is that the capability is built in and one can only hope the subsequent software updates will make this pretty cool feature more workable and useful. I was pretty excited when I first read that I could use my iPhone as a remote shutter release and monitor!  I have enabled my Nex-6 with my iPhone 5, and have used it in my house as a remote.  Its pretty darn cool!  Once you figure out how to get the camera to “join” the network (it takes a master programmer – don’t expect any intelligible help from any of the available documention–you use a localWiFi connection, but once the camera logs on, it then names itself as a network and that is what you tell the iPhone to join), you will not only be able to use the phone as a remote shutter release, but the phone’s monitor becomes a live view monitor for the camera!  It was fun to play with and with my iPhone armed with a pdf manual, TPE, and GPS and Mapping software, you will have a pretty good accessory to the camera.  Lets hope they get this fixed—and right.

Things I would like to see added in new firmware or design:

Dedicated AF button: I use the back AF button on my DSLR bodies most of the time when doing landscape shooting (especially from a tripod). I turn off the AF activation from the shutter button. On the Nex-6, it seems like you could program it so when video is turned off, you could assign that function to the video button.

Custom Shooter Banks: the D800 (and other Nikon bodies) allow you to set up a couple (4 on the 800) custom shooter banks. I currently use only 2, a Landscape and an Action bank, but that would be a useful feature.

More Customization of the “Function” Button:  As I mentioned, I would like to be able to populate its short list with the functions I, in my own discretion, access the most

Tentative Conclusions:

Let me say that I love this camera–so far.  I think positives solidly outweigh the negatives.  It appears that it will be the answer to my desire for something more “usable” in conditions where setting up the “big guns” is simply not practical or convenient.  And, I think it really has some crossover potential, so that I will feel that I can achieve photographic goals with it even though I do not have immediate access to my D800.

I don’t have any illusions that it will become a “replacement” for my D800.  They are different tools for different purposes.  But it would not surprise me to see the Nex get more use on a regular basis than the D800.  My good friend, mentor, and pro photographer, Ray Laskowitz, made a very interesting, and I think apt observation.  He views the D800 the new “medium format,” in the sense that it creates such a massive megapixel image size (of course, the handling is the same as it always has been for an SLR camera).  The newer compact, APS sized sensors in these cameras like the Nex are making them essentially a more portable DSLR.   And rumors abound that there will be a (so-called) “full-frame” sensor compact in the not too distant future.  I don’t know whether I’ll consider that overkill or not.  Technology marches on.  The Nex is surely electronically equivalent to today’s DSLR models.  Imagery will, over time, tell.  I am looking forward to using it more and hopefully, from time to time, reporting back here.

Next week:  The included Sony 15-50 zoom lens.  Stay tuned …………………………..