Why is the D800 late.

I stand corrected, thanks to a reader with useful information. Now people who can never constructively debate online, watch and learn: I will admit that I was wrong on the Internet. 

I first wrote that:

Great news to all of you who preordered a D800! 

The Nikon D900 will be out in 2015 ! Which means you can have it just before you receive your D800 for comparison. You can then sell your D800 to Le Louvre museum in Paris: 

"Look son, that is a D800! It was one of the most desired camera of all time, the 7 guys in the world who finally got one said it was actually good. Of course that remains a legend since no one was ever able to seen one in store."

Seriously Nikon, production chain ? Creating desire by lowering availability is one thing. And it's ok when the product is actually useless (hint: it start's with an "i" and finished by "pad"). But when you can 't fulfill more than 15% of the preorders at best (yes I have all the numbers for all shops in my town as well as the exact numbers delivered), this is called incompetence and bad supply chain management. It's even more serious when most of those people are pros waiting for their work tool.

I am mad, you're lucky you have no direct competition. 

Then I was redirected to a good article explaining why Nikon can't do it all. Basically, they have a maximum monthly production capacity and since the demand is only at a peak at launch, it is industrially irrelevant to make a much larger factory that would run 80% empty most of the time. Therefore, you gotta wait. 

Fact: well, it sucks but that's the way it is and it's not incompetence from Nikon.

Perception of the fact: Nikon should explain us why. Now that I know, well, I'm less mad.

And because you still gotta be mad at someone: rich amateurs who can't take a decent picture, stop preordering pro gear that pros actually need to make a living ! Damnit ! Most shot's I've seen from a D800  so far were just plain bad. I'm mad again ! (yeah back to normal). 

Thanks to "anonymous" for the comment.

D800 rating #1 at DxOmark

...what the hell is DxOmark?

DxOMark is "the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings. "

In other words, if you wonder how your sensor performs against an other, and argue online based on your visual interpretation of  a 1:1 crop, give it up, check DxOmark, close the debate. Then you'll be able to stop counting pixels and do some actual photography :)

Now wait, if I despise pixel counting, why am I mentioning that ranking? Answering this question requires asking an other question: why do some people still shoot film? Well among the reasons, film has a much superior dynamic range than any digital sensor. That is simply an awesome property and one of the reasons I shoot mostly film no matter what. It means you can shoot a high contrast scene and both dark and bright zones will come out with a proper level of exposure. Beyond the technical talk, it just makes photographs way more subtle, refined, colors are nicer, and landscapes in particular looks a zillion times better. Digital photographer use filters, or HDR (high dynamic range) to simulate the better dynamic range of film. 

But now, look at this: 

At ISO100, 200 and 400, the D800 offers even better dynamic range than a D4. This + 36MP + built in HDR mode make it the best landscape SLR you can which for. Of course, any large format camera will destroy it, but for digital, it's good stuff. It overtakes the D700 all the way, and only the D4 ranks better from ISO 800 and above.

Every camera is best at something, for large prints plenty of light shots, or long exposures, the D800 is your friend. 

Oh and according to the ranking, the D800's sensor doesn't only overtake the D4, it also is ahead of the 50000$ Phase One IQ180MP best of the best digital medium format camera... So i'll say it: when I heard about the 36MP, I was like "yeah right...crap". I was wrong.

Kinky Monday: Helmut Newton

If you are just a little bit into fashion photography, you know who he was and what he did. For the others, Helmut Newton was to fashion photographer what Senna was to Formula 1, or what James Cameron is to movie making: a big shot. 

He was famous for his provocative black and white nudes, sometimes (often?) erotic photographs. Now the convenient thing when you are in the top of greatest fashion photographers of your time, is that you don't get to shoot nudes just with anyone... If you add talent and class to the equation, you have all the greatest models and actresses undressing for you. The result: some of the most glamourous classic black and white nudes ever.

Mr. Newton was shooting for Vogue a lot, and I'd put in among that group of great classics along wilth Lindberg and Demarchelier. Well, I actually have right in front of me a pile of Vogues from the past 24 months. Hum...ok...call me a grumpy nostalgic, but if you thing James Bond was classier in the times of Sean Connery, then you probably would agree Vogue was something else back in the days when more guys like Helmut Newton were in it. Hey Vogue editors, how about  alittle less Terry Richardson (dude seriously, move on. We get it, you painted a nice white wall and you want to make it worth the time spent), and a little more best of the best classic photography Helmut Newton style?

Inspiration: Alberto Cassani

I found Italian graphic designer and photographer Alberto Cassani on Flickr. Surprisingly we twice took the exact same shot in the exact same place in Berlin. Now that could happen in Time Square easily, but both our shots were taken in places where people would not traditionally stop to take a picture.

Of course, someone who follows the same path as me (although I believe I made those shots after him but anyway) MUST be very talented and deserves a blog post :p

Check out his site: http://www.albertocassani.com/

My personal selection:

The Nu Project

Minneapolis (gooooo Goooophers !!! ... sorry old habit) photographer Matt Blum started those series of nudes in 2005 with the following rules: no models, no make up, no glamour, real people only.

Go to your local supermarket, now look at Matt Blum's work...yup he shoots normal people. Now I wouldn't promote if that was the only virtue of his work. Those also happen to be great shots. Both things put together make it all very interesting.

What will be even more interesting for you is to analyse the reaction you're going to have watching his galleries. 

My first thought was that years of magazines and internet nudity actually shape your brain in a way that you might not even be aware of. You do become somehow intolerant to normality, that's wicked and pretty dumb. Especially knowing what my belly is turning into... Oh! Wait ! Now I start to see how it can ruin your selfesteem as a teenage girl.

Then voyeurism went away, and I noticed one thing as a photographer: those people tell a lot more of story than those photoshop models. I did shoot models or attractive girls I convinced to pose. They mostly do what they know from magazines. I used to set them up in a romantic kinda set up but it was all fake. I'm passed that now, but this work makes me realize I haven't taken an actual portrait for a while. By that I mean an image that is a true extract of who a person is. That sucks for portrait photographers...back to basics Ronan.