DSLR Pics: Squirrels with the Nikon D2X

One of the best deals in a high-quality long telephoto zoom for DSLRs is the AF Nikkor Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR. You can find them used at BezosMart for under $400, which is really pretty sweet when you consider that they stickered for close to two grand when they debuted back at the turn of the Millennium.

Why are they so inexpensive? Well, they are an older style autofocus Nikon lens, utilizing a focus motor in the camera body to turn a drive screw in the lens body. This means they won't work as an autofocus lens on any of the inexpensive D3xxx or D5xxx Nikon bodies, or with an FTZ adaptor on a newer Nikon mirrorless. This reduces their demand on the used market.

Plus, it's not a very fast-focusing lens, especially on a prosumer type Nikon body. The big single-digit pro bodies, though, have torquey enough focusing motors to spin this lens reasonably quickly.

This is where the Nikon D2X comes in. The D2 series was Nikon's last pro body to use an APS-C size sensor, what Nikon calls "DX format", with the D2X having a 12MP Sony-manufactured CMOS unit, rather than the proprietary Nikon LBCAST sensor used in the D2H. 

Because they're so old, you can find good deals on them used online. I spotted mine for a couple hundred bucks in the showcase at Roberts.

Because of the 1.5X crop factor of the DX sensor, the 80-200mm lens has an effective focal length bump to the equivalent of 120-600mm, letting you get right up in the grille of Mr. Squirrel.

The effective VR system comes in handy with a lens this big and heavy, allowing you to shoot hand-held at much slower shutter speeds than you'd be able to with a non-stabilized lens. (This is one of those lenses that's big and heavy enough to rate a tripod foot.)

Here's the 80-200 mounted on my old Nikon D1X.

This is a great combo for urban wildlife, if a bit slow for birds-in-flight or sports.

DSLR Pics: Squirrel with the Nikon D2X

If you have a DX format Nikon DSLR, it's hard to beat the Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II as a general-purpose walking around lens for those situations where you might need more reach.

I've long been a proponent of the Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4E VR as the single best zoom lens for the crop sensor Nikon bodies, but it has two caveats: The first is that the maximum focal length is only a 120mm equivalent, which is a little short for situations like going to the zoo or trying to get pictures of squirrels up in a tree. The second is that it has an electronically-controlled diaphragm that the Nikon D2X is too old to operate.

The 18-200mm VR II fixes both these problems, since it uses a standard F-mount mechanically-coupled diaphragm, and on the long end it has an equivalent focal length of 300mm, which was more than enough to get me all up in this squirrel's grille, even though he was a good five or six feet over my head in the tree.

The only real functional difference between the original 18-200mm VR and the VR II version is that the latter has a latch to keep it locked in the 18mm position, but I haven't had much problem with not using it. Unlike my Canon zooms... especially the EF-S 17-55/2.8 ...the Nikon glass doesn't seem as prone to extending itself under gravity's pull.

DSLR Pics: Squirrels with Nikon D2X and D7100

The leaves are off the trees and the squirrels are plump and active, foraging for acorns to bulk up for winter. It's too cold to sit outside at Fat Dan's and wait for neat cars to drive by, but primo squirrel-spotting season, and that means it's time for longer zoom lenses on my walkabout cameras.

The upper photo was shot with a ten year old Nikon D7100, wearing a 16-80mm f/2.8-4E VR zoom. The 120mm equivalent long end on this lens makes it a little short for optimum squirrel spotting. The little dude upside down on the tree trunk was only a dozen or so feet away, but only the 24MP resolution of the D7100's sensor allowed me to crop it down to something useful.

The photo below was shot with the 2004-vintage Nikon D2X & 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR II combo. That extra focal length helps, as this photo didn't need near as much cropping, even though the squirrel was twice as far away.

Olympus E-300 EVOLT review, part 2…

(Continued from Part I...)

The DSLR market… heck, the whole digital camera market …was way different in 2004 than it is now. It’s even different than it was in the mid ‘teens before cheap digicams were crushed by the increasing abilities of camera phones.

Due to the price of sensors, early DSLRs were marketed directly to professional photographers, the sort of people who could write off camera purchases on their taxes as a legitimate business expense. Sure, some well-heeled amateurs bought the early Nikon D1’s and Canon D30’s in 1999-2000, but interchangeable lens digital cameras remained a phenomenon reserved for people who could blow quite a wad on one. 

By early 2004, the first “inexpensive” DSLRs had hit the market from Canon and Nikon. The Digital Rebel from Canon (sold elsewhere as the 300D) stickered for right at a grand with a kit zoom lens, and Nikon’s D70 went for the same sticker price for just the body; adding a lens to the Nikon took the tariff to twelve ninety-nine.

Looking back at the DSLR market from its sunset years, it’s common to refer to the lowest price models in any manufacturer’s catalog as “entry” or “beginner” cameras, but you couldn’t really classify these cameras that way, since they had to serve two market niches. One niche may have been actual beginners, but the other was photography enthusiasts who just hadn’t been convinced to spring for a “serious” digital camera yet.

Bear in mind that the thousand dollar Rebel or D70 in 2004 was selling for the equivalent of sixteen hundred bucks in 2023 dollars.  These days that’s a sum of money that will get you solidly into the ranks of “prosumer” cameras.

When Olympus jumped into this market in 2004 with their second DSLR, the EVOLT E-300, they had to make a camera that wouldn't intimidate novices, but would offer enough control to avoid alienating advanced amateurs.

So the dial on the top offers the usual PASM modes for the latter, as well as the little icons of a face, a mountain, a running dude, and the cryptic hieroglyph that signifies a backlit subject to appease the former. In addition, there's a "SCENE" setting on the dial that drops you into a menu of more than a dozen other presets, to include everything from "fireworks" and "night portrait" to "museum" and "document".

Bobbi's rental Tiguan in the foreground, my '94 GT in the background
Olympus E-300 & Zuiko Digital 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 

In 2023, the E-300 has several downsides.

While it's capable of taking perfectly adequate photos in capable hands as long as one stays within its limitations, those limitations are pretty severe.

The camera's ISO range is limited to 100, 200, and 400 settings, and the vintage Four Thirds CCD-type sensor is hella noisy by the time you're at 400. Compounding this problem is the fact that, if you pick up a used example and nobody's bothered to update its BIOS, it will only work with the old Four Thirds kit lenses that existed when it was new. I have several good pieces of fast Four Thirds glass, but the first time I tried mounting the 12-60mm f/2.8-4 on the camera, I thought I'd bricked it. It took turning it off and removing the battery for a hard reset to get the thing up and running again.

Further, the Porro finder is a dim and cramped little tunnel that will leave you pining for the subpar pentamirrors found on a D3000 or Rebel XTi.

All in all, unless you are just chasing a retro experience for giggles, collecting old Olympus DSLRs, or trying something a little challenging, I'd probably pass on an E-300 for actual use.

My pal Bug behind the bar at Fat Dan's in SoBro.
Olympus E-300 & Zuiko Digital 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6

E-300 update...

Just needing to gather up some more photos with the Olympus E-300 EVOLT to illustrate the second half of the review.

Here's a loaded baked potato shot in indirect sunlight at base ISO of 100 and a pistol shot on a heavily overcast morning at the max ISO of 400. (Well, maximum unexpanded ISO. But it's noisy enough without faking ISO 800 or 1600.)

Both were taken using the Zuiko Digital 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, more about which in the closing part of the review.

Old Enough to Vote

Had the Nikon D1X out to keep the shutter exercised yesterday. With a 21-y.o. camera, you don't take that for granted. Sooner or later it will snap its last photo...but that day wasn't yesterday!

The staff at Fat Dan's is friendly!

The problem with the D1X for indoor work by available light is my paucity of Nikon DX lenses. The best DX lens I have for the purpose is the 16-80mm f/2.8-4E VR, but the D1X is too old to control the electronic diaphragm on that lens. There's the 17-55mm f/2.8G, but it's not stabilized and it's a bazooka of a lens; very unsubtle.

I went with the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G, which is also not stabilized, but at least is compact and light. The 18-70 was originally a kit lens for the then-new D70 in 2004. The lens was discontinued in the early 'teens, but is a hidden gem in the Nikon DX lineup. Inexpensive and tack sharp, even dudes like Thom Hogan speak well of it.

With an old camera like the D1X, your maximum realistically usable ISO is 800, and even that's pushing it, as you can see by the noise in the portrait I shot.

It's hand-held, 1/125th of a second at f/4 at a focal length of 34mm in aperture priority mode with the lens cranked as wide open as it would get.

.

Olympus E-300 Review: Part 1

Olympus launched their first DSLR, the E-1, to much fanfare in 2003. Not only was it the first DSLR from Olympus, it was the first interchangeable lens system camera designed from the ground up for a digital sensor, rather than being adapted from a film camera.

Unlike Canon and Nikon, Olympus didn’t have a huge installed user base of autofocus lens owners they had to lure to digital, so they started with a clean sheet of paper for their sensor and lens mount.

As part of the Four Thirds consortium, along with Kodak, Panasonic, and Fuji, they used a smaller sensor, which would be less expensive, an important factor in those days when image sensors were still phenomenally spendy. The E-1 had a ruggedized, weather-sealed magnesium alloy body, an innovative ultrasonic vibrating sensor cleaning mechanism, and resolution equivalent to or better than the contemporary Canon EOS-1D and Nikon D1X despite only costing $1699 (about 2800 bucks in 2023 dollars).

Almost simultaneous with the launch of the Olympus E-1 came the next shot fired in the DSLR wars, from Canon, who announced a stripped down consumer DSLR with a plastic body shell for under a grand. The 6.3MP EOS 300D, sold in the US as the Digital Rebel, hit shelves for $999 with a bundled 18-55mm kit lens. Olympus returned fire in 2004 with their second DSLR, a consumer-grade 8MP camera named the E-300, which sold for $999 with a Zuiko 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 lens included in the box.

The E-300 had three selectable autofocus points, had an ISO range of 100-400 (expandable to 800 or 1600, but don't bother), shutter speeds up to 1/4000th of a second, and could shoot 2.5 frames/sec...at least for four frames, at which point the buffer was filled.

Despite the lack of a viewfinder hump (due to its odd Porro finder system) and small Four Thirds sensor, the E-300 wasn't meaningfully smaller than its competition from Canon, although it offered more megapixels for less money.

Part two of this review will have some photo results and conclusions!

.

Project Evolution...

Sometimes I get a little carried away with a project idea...

Nikon F5 > D1X > D2X > D3

Practical Pixels

In 2004, digital cameras had become mainstream, but sensors were still expensive. Digital SLRs with 35mm-sized "full-frame" sensors were exotically expensive, being limited to the Canon EOS 1Ds and some Kodak hybrids.

Point 'n' Shoot compacts, now commonplace and offered by every manufacturer, were still generally a couple hundred bucks. Most were in the 5-6 megapixel range and had built in zoom lenses, video recording ability, and other gimmicks to offset their physically tiny sensors.

The interchangeable-lens DSLR had just dropped below the thousand-dollar mark with Canon's 6.3MP Digital Rebel (aka the 300D) and there was something of a format war in the category.

Canon and Nikon were constrained by the need to woo customers who already had substantial investments in their 35mm film camera systems. In order to allow the film camera lenses to be usefully ported over, the sensors couldn't be too small, or else they'd not work well. This also allowed the two makers to essentially convert existing film camera technology to digital; indeed, their early DSLRs were based on 35mm film camera bodies.

The solution was a sensor size that became known as APS-C. Canon & Nikon used slightly different sensor sizes, with Canon's offering an effective 1.6X focal length multiplier to existing lenses, and Nikon's multiplying by 1.5X.

Olympus and Panasonic, on the other hand, went with a clean sheet of paper: an all-new sensor format called Four Thirds. About the same size as an old 110 Instamatic film negative, these small sensors were cheaper than APS-C to make, and had a 2X crop factor relative to a "full frame" camera. In other words, a 50mm lens, which is a standard mid-focal length on traditional film cameras, would act like a 100mm lens on a Four Thirds camera.

In 2004, the super coolest most ultra APS-C camera was probably Nikon's D2X pro camera. Boasting a 12MP sensor and a $5,000 price tag, this would be the camera used by photojournalists everywhere from NFL sidelines to the war zones of the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Olympus had just launched their second Four Thirds camera, and their first one targeted at consumers rather than pros and enthusiasts. The E-300 used a Kodak-manufactured CCD sensor, and it had two-thirds the megapixels of the top-of-the-line Nikon, and could be had for a fifth of the money; while five grand got you a Nikon D2X with no lens, just a box and a battery charger, the Olympus EVOLT E-300 could be had for $999 with a 14-45mm zoom lens included in the kit.

With more and more people viewing pictures on screens, what was the practical difference? Here are some pics shot with an E-300 and the 14-45mm kit zoom, compared to ones shot with a D2X and the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II.

E-300

D2X

E-300

D2X

E-300

D2X

Truthfully the biggest visual difference to me, after accounting for the mangling effects of compression, is actually one of sensor technology, more than size or megapixel count.

The Nikon D2X uses a Sony-sourced CMOS sensor, while the Olympus E-300 uses a Kodak-made CCD sensor. While CCD sensors have been more or less completely replaced by CMOS ones, there are holdouts who insist that the CCD had "more pleasing" images, sometimes providing facts, but often with a level of hand-waving woo reminiscent of vinyl discs and vacuum tube amps.

You can embigennate the pics and judge for yourselves.

.