DX D400 Futures?

Sorry all wanting something lighter, this will be another long one and without any photos; as I’d rather just write the piece than spend time illustrating it. Photo-blog type pieces will come, too, but I’d rather just focus on the ideas here and maybe, maybe illustrate it later…

As anyone reading here recently may know, I’m both a DX and M4/3 system user, though in terms of equipment owned/investments made, am certainly more in the DX camp. As much as like M4/3 it is by no means as complete a system as the major DSLR offerings, including DX. Which makes me wonder what is afoot in Nikonland with what is, for many like myself, their major system. As Thom Hogan so rightly says, DX is a distinct system from FX. Sure, you can use FX lenses on DX, but they will probably be both larger and more expensive and although there are some very good, even remarkable FX lenses, there is nothing about the format that makes them inherently better. In fact, with the larger image circle, it is harder to make a good FX lens. Still, it seems pretty clear that Nikon would like their more serious users to pony up the cash and ‘move on up’ to FX, but the problem with this strategy is that it makes their DX lenses redundant. Despite the message that FX is the upgrade, might  a serious DX upgrade path, a.k.a. ‘D400’, emerge after all?

Right now, depending on your tastes and needs, there isn’t really one ‘almighty’ FX DSLR to get. The D800 may have great resolution, but that brings with it the problem of storage and processing power to handle the huge files, files that have more resolution than many would realistically need anyway. It’s also, at 4fps, it’s an unusually slow camera for general usage, matching the D3100/D5100 in this department, not to mention heavy and prone to showing the shortcomings of everyday lenses and techniques. The ‘fix’ for this may well be the D600, but at $2000 it is certainly expensive, yet despite this, lacks a pro build and comes with handicapped features. Bracketing is artificially limited to 3 shots, the AF points are clustered in a tiny space in the middle, as it has a modified D7000 DX AF unit, rather than the newer one of the D4 and D800. In short, you pay a premium for FX whichever way you see it and with all the advances made in DX, it makes little sense.

The situation is quite different from when I (and thousands of others) bought our D300 so many moons ago. This camera revolutionised our DX usage with far better dynamic range, high ISO and AF than anything before it. Most couldn’t afford a D3, anyway. Soon after came the D700, which was more expensive, but a natural upgrade for those who’d been looking for a body to use their 35mm film lenses on and have the usual usage of them. D200/D300 to D700 made some sense. Those who stayed with DX probably kept filling out their lens line with DX lenses, especially wide-angle zooms and perhaps the 35mm f/1.8 DX, too. They might have a mixture of older FX lenses (and some new ones) and DX ones. Here though is the cracker… if one wants to go for one of the newer FX cameras, you sacrifice resolution if you keep using DX lenses on the D600 and probably hardly any of the older film lenses will be any good on the, even the ones that are half-decent on DX. Which means a new body and new lenses and not so much sense in keeping many of the DX ones.

So, with all this in mind, it is natural that many, if not most people who want to stay with DSLRs will be quite happy with the economy and excellent image quality possible with APS-C sensors. Even some of the mirrorless formats are using APS-C, such as Fuji or NEX. It isn’t dead, it isn’t redundant, it hasn’t been superseded by the expensive, unwieldy world of FX, which remains very hard to design suitable lenses for (even more so, as the resolution rises, with such a comparatively large sensor area to cover). The best FX lenses are very expensive, out of  reach of the average consumer. So where is the DX love, Nikon?

DX Needs

What we need are a few things, which are mostly overdue (and I’m willing to believe that the flooding in Thailand and time set aside to update the FX line is more responsible for this than a lack of will on Nikon’s part)…

1) A D400 with the pro AF from the D4/D800, advanced metering and pro build. It should have between 7-11 FPS, making it a great choice for sports. It could be anything from 16-24MP and still be an upgrade from the D300S, but I expect it also needs to be seen as an upgrade for D7000 users (or D7100 users, when they exist). If this involves more resolution, it puts Nikon in a rather difficult position, as well-performing 24MP DX sensors and compatible lenses are thin on the ground, so it might stay at the ‘more sensible’ 16MP and have other innovations, such as better dynamic range, or on-sensor PDAF for filming videos. Since the D4 is 16MP, I can’t imagine too many complaints, though super-high resolution might be interesting! Either way, such a camera could be cheaper and a lot better than the D600, being a DX D800 to match the D600’s ‘FX D7000’ placement.

2)  More AF-S primes, preferably some DX specific ones, but at any rate updates to ‘D’ models that won’t autofocus on the smaller DX bodies, which many have as their main, or perhaps backup, camera. Of these, a 16mm, 24mm and hopefully a 60-70mm ‘portrait’ prime are needed. I say needed as here we are talking of an independent DX format, not a limited one that lacks such essential lenses of relies on clunky zooms. A 58mm f/0.95- F/1.2 DX might be expensive, but it would sort this out quite quickly. In a world without pro DX it will of course never come.

3) While we’re at it, some updated DX zooms would also be nice, a 16-85mm F/4 and an 80-400mm (which would probably be FX, but could probably be more cheaply be made if optimised for DX  as there’s less worry about corners). For the format to be serious, a new, 16-55mm f/2.8 VR (or so) would be needed and possibly even a 50-150mm f/2.8 VR. If there is a move to 24MP, this may be even more important, as the 17-55mm F/2.8 won’t be enough… and sooner or later I can’t really see such a move being avoided, as even compacts have 20+ MP. What would be really interesting would be some F/2 zooms, which would in a sense give FX levels of DOF control, but then there is the price (see #2).

4) If there is to be a DX mirrorless line, sooner rather than later would be a good time to announce it, or at least drop some serious hints. If new wide primes are being ‘saved’ for such a camera, that would make some sense as many say DX s it is is poorly suited to such lenses, but without any announcement and the sparse primes offered for Nikon 1, it’s really unclear what is planned. This means that more people looking for such lenses may jump ship to get them. For many enthusiasts, after all, such lenses are the very core of their photography and suggesting they use outdated (and still expensive) AF-D primes, or MF lenses carries less weight now that there are so many alternatives out there. Nikon seems not to care about this issue, but taking a look at market trends, I think they must notice.

A lot of Nikon users love the brand and want to stay with it and many others have already invested to the point at which they are wedded to it anyway. There is certainly not much advantage to switching APS-C DSLR lines (other than to Pentax perhaps). People like me who are sick of waiting and have decided they might well be waiting for ever have started a system in a mirrorless line, in my case M4/3 and for others NEX. This already eats into Nikon’s sales and also means that if I am extending my line, I might well do so in the M4/3 system, which gets more capable every generation, whilst DX for the last few years (leaving aside consumer zoom updates), seems to be stagnating a bit, or is even in a confused position as it confronts the space-saving, live-view friendly nature of competing systems.

Whilst FX offers a way out, I can’t see myself completely switching to an FX system… ever! I think APS-C was a necessary stage in the evolution and miniaturisation of the SLR and now the DSLR, which produces more than fine results for most uses. Advances in sensor design, such as Fuji’s, or Foveon’s improvements, not to mention Sony’s excellent innovations in greater dynamic range and lower noise, offer great possibilities for the future. People have said that Foveon can equal D800 resolution and the PRO-1 can match full-frame high-ISO, so the advantages of FX are hardly exclusive anymore, the way they were when smaller sensors performed relatively poorly. Even if I do get an FX body, It will be for specific uses and I’ll use my DX bodies/lenses alongside it. The short DOF of the format is very attractive, as are the viewfinders and traditional lens lengths. Yet the bodies Nikon offers now are so slow and lack reach (unless DX lenses are used on them, at lower pixel counts), so it does seem like a mixed blessing and not a straightforward ‘upgrade’, as is made out. My main concern is size as I can’t see myself travelling with a full FX kit, though DX is more manageable for this. Certainly, for certain things like birding or sports from a distance, DX makes more sense with its shorter lenses.

As for myself, I’d probably rather have a great D400 than settle for a D600 (or, for that matter, a D7100). A pro camera with pro features need not be out of reach and of course  I’d want one for the lenses I already have, many of which are excellent on my DX D300 and will be worse on FX (yes, including some FX ones). Some see the D7000 line as the new apex of DX, but I’m not so sure it’ll happen. People tend to read too much into delays or announcement of other products and mirrorless cameras won’t supplant DSLRs just yet and maybe not for a long time to come, if ever. The D800/D600 releases don’t preclude high-end DX, any more than the D3200 meant that there would be no serious high-resolution camera (the D800). Horses for courses will continue to emerge.

The D400

In truth, I think the D400 will probably arrive some time next year and face the Canon 7D MkII for competition. I expect it will have on-sensor AF, 18-24MP, pro-build and very high FPS, perhaps even 12 in some modes. It will be as much a game-changer as the D200/D300 were before it and not just more of the same, as it will have to also show how superior DX is to the mirrorless cameras in its element. On the whole, I expect a faster, DX D800 with a few new features. It’ll be a very attractive camera, even if by not being FX it won’t  have the DOF control that format offers, I still think that brighter or longer lenses are a better way of achieving that for most people than switching to a new format all-together. DOF is a relationship between sensor/film size, lens length/distance from subject and aperture. Equivalents are often possible (although they may be less convenient in certain usages, hence the appeal of larger formats for certain usages).

On a personal note, I’m not really all that bothered it took so long to update the D300 properly. Having a radically new sensor and better AF will make for a much better upgrade than just an incremental one and also one that will last for longer. I’m pretty happy with my D300/D5100 combo and look forward for something even better yet. Attractive though M4/3 is, I still like the advantages of DX and the access to my range of lenses. I’ve tried EVFs and to my mind, they are all still pretty horrible compared to a good OVF, despite their massive advantages. That alone is reason to keep using DSLRs, as it’s the camera in the present that counts, not what might be in the future.

Advertisements

More on Mirrorless

Like a lot of people, during many years of DSLR use, I’d been wanting for some time a lighter, alternative and I decided a few months ago to follow my heart on this and give M4/3 a try. Thanks to some superb pricing, I found myself with an Olympus EPL-2 with the twin zoom kit, something I’d had my eye on for some time, but already having an extensive Nikon system, had been loath to start investing in another one. Yet realising that without too much outlay I could have a pretty comprehensive kit that is very little trouble to carry around and a real pleasure to use, I took the plunge and haven’t really looked back.

Seeing the quality I could get and in many cases superior sharpness and colour, has been quite a revelation. Olympus and Panasonic have given me access to a new family of relatively small, light lenses of incredible quality, with the promise of more to come. Just looking at the results from the 25mm f/1.4 Pana-Leica, or Olympus’s groundbreaking 75mm f/1.8 or 60mm macro is just astonishing. No, I don’t (yet) have a complete system on it, nor do I need to, as I have the Nikons for that. What I do have is a highly portable, if not quite ‘compact’ sized system, with very good sensors, ergonomics and lenses that are in many ways better than their equivalents on DSLR systems, which may come as a surprise to anyone assuming that bigger must necessarily be better.

Meanwhile, I have kept building my ‘main’ Nikon system and have some of the reasonably priced Nikon primes. They are a lot more fun to use than zooms and are sharp and bright, but no way do they have the character and level of interestingness of my M4/3 ones. There is a reason for this.  Whilst my 35mm and 50mm f/1.8’s are in many ways excellent lenses, with fine sharpness, bokeh and usability, they are offered as Nikon’s ‘second best’ to their larger, f/1.4 cousins. Meanwhile, on M4/3, there is no ‘full frame’ to encourage users to ‘upgrade’ to… To mind almost as ridiculous as asking 35mm film users to go out and get a medium format camera if they want a good lens!

Whilst there are grades of lenses on M4/3, you can get some incredible ones without too much outlay. Thanks to the smaller and ‘designed for digital’ sensors to cover, you can get some really excellent glass especially developed for them, a situation we previously only found with the high-end compacts (though M4/3 sensors are so much larger than such compacts that you have a big advantage). What really showed me the strength of the system was reviewing my images, seeing just what I was able to achieve with them. Thanks to Olympus’s intelligently built-in shake reduction and lenses that don’t really need to be stopped down, I could get away with much lower ISOs, so avoid the disadvantage here. I started to get some really amazing results and being able to use the small cameras more casually is undoubtedly a factor in this. In terms of the lens designers, the format means they can much more easily make small sharp creations, that perform really well indeed.

Here are my lenses and a little comment on what it’s like to use them. These aren’t of course reviews, but in a sense user reports. They an’t objective tests, but my feelings of what it’s like to use them. The reference point is all I really know; my experiences with Nikon’s line, on DX, which has it’s own significant advantages when it comes to dynamic range and depth of field control, not to mention being light years better at higher ISO’s (especially compared to the aging sensor in the EPL-2).

(more…)

Photography, Art or Craft?

As many who know me will be aware, I love to make HDR photographs. this is a technology for blending various exposures and obtaining a much richer image. In my next post, I’ll reproduce an article I wrote for a university magazine about the process. It’s a long one, but I hope you think it’s worth it. I hope to write more articles about photography here. People I know are often coming to me for advice on how to take better photos. Ultimately, you need to use your eyes more- all you can do with a camera is take photos of something you can see. Yet photography is also a very technical art, in that it is closely tied in with the equipment and techniques being used to obtain images.

It is certainly the case that better techniques and equipment can get ‘better’ results, at least results closer to your expectations when using them. In some ways this is a disappointing thing about photography- the very best lenses are priced way above our budgets. Yet there is a silver lining to this crowd- DSLRs have been gradually coming down in price to the point at which very good, or even excellent image quality from the camera itself is very affordable. Of course, in the quest for the perfect image some will disagree with this assessment, preferring to use either very high-end DSLRs, or even stay with the tried and tested realm of film. Those who can afford to and can handle the manual focus, might gravitate to a Leica M9, or digital medium format, such as is used for architecture or fashion photography. Lower down the scale, many are going for full-frame digital, despite the weight and for them, this is ‘good enough’ and incredible enough. Still, even an average DSLR from today’s selection of APS-C cropped sensors can produce incredible, award-winning images, much better than attainable from the compacts that are being upgraded from.

The affordability of DSLRs has also produced a new range of pro or semi-pro lenses that are also very good, meaning that the equipment is as good as needed. New primes like the Nikon 35mm f/1.8, or their 50mm lenses are not too expensive, and then you have bright zooms like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 series. People don’t have to stick with the compromised kit lenses, unless they really want the convenience of their small size and range. So the next area of concern is proper technique holding the camera steady, use of VR lenses (if available) or a tripod, to minimise picture-quality-destroying camera shake. Learning good composition, pleasing to the eye when seen afterwards is a great art, in fact something that will make for unique photos. So, in terms of the equipment and techniques, there is a lot we can do to get the best results possible.

Yet at this point, the point of digital photography where we can get astounding results even with moderately-priced equipment, we start to wonder- what happened to the individuality of images? The mottled colours, the weird experiments that went wrong, the accidental misty lens, or the blurry yet satisfying fringes of a Holga photo? Where are the rich and moving colours of Velvia film, not quite the same as reality, yet more entrancing than just sliding up the saturation slider? For this, there is not such an easy answer for digital, which is generally aiming at an android-like sense of perfection in which there is total reproduction of the scene with minimal inconvenience at obtaining it. So the answer is to fight back against digital, to rage against the machine, with a plethora of filters and digital techniques to restore the ‘feeling’ to the mere ‘recording’ of digital equipment. One of the most powerful of these and one that is steadily becoming mainstream as an ‘option’ on some digital cameras, is that of HDR and Tone-mapping. In the next article, I’ll be saying something about this.

Revisiting the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8

Here’s an update from using this lens since my original review, over a year ago, based around the autofocus issues. It may be getting older by the day, but I think this is still is a relevant lens for anyone using DX, for which the 17-55mm is Nikon’s first (and perhaps last attempt?) at a standard pro zoom. I still love the image quality from this lens, the smooth bokeh (considering the focal lengths) and the general handling, though it is very tank-like. One of it’s selling points is it’s fast autofocus, though on closer examination, I think something (on my copy at least) is getting lost in the speed.

From thinking it was straightforward, I’m now seeing that the 17-55 is basically a tricky lens to use, if you want the best results. It gets very long for a non-VR lens (further than the 24-70mm does on FX) and is quite bulky, so hard to really stablise on a body. Maybe the D3 is the optimal match- the D300 being good, but not perfect. Also, I think my informal AF tests were sound- it focuses very quickly, which is great, but it would ratherfocus on something else than hunt when it isn’t sure. I’d say this isn’t just my camera’s settings, it’s the way the lens AF is communicating with the body. At telephoto, this problem is exacerbated, especially in low light and I get a lot of backfocus.
I remember the new 50mm f/1.4 G coming in for a lot of criticism for it’s AF-S being slower than the ‘D’ version’s, though also being praised for it’s accuracy, which at f1.4 is all the more important for it. Being an event-oriented lens, it seems Nikon went to the other extreme for the 17-55 and I can’t trust it to get it right without babying it along. It seems even at it’s high price, there are no free lunches as to it’s capabilities. After all the tests and repairs mine has been through, I’m going to trust Nikon that this is as good a copy as exists. The only solution seems to me to be to focus on high-contrast details in the same or a similar plane of focus.

Personally, I think Nikon will update it with a VR version, like everyone else has and also that the optics will suffer a bit, as in-lens VR doesn’t work to well or wider lens designs. Now that VR is more commonplace, this is just too long a lens to be left without it. I’m not so sure they’ll bother with the nano-coating, as they probably don’t want DX to be pro, just enthusiast-level. I’m also not so sure many people will care, so long as the results are good enough. This is a lens more similar in it’s abilities and actual DOF to the 24-120mm f/4 than to the state of the art 24-70. Of course, if Nikon might not make it, but I tend to think they will see the market, even for prosumers, for a fast normal zoom that’s competitive. Sitting back while people buy Tamrons or Sigmas, hoping they ‘level up’ to FX doesn’t seem to me to be the best business policy and I think Nikon are catching on (though making a very affordable FX camera could work just as well, let’s see).

Until then, would I recommend the 17-55? Well… it’s still worth using for those who will put the effort into getting the best from it. I’ll  be using this whenever I have an event job, as it has to my mind very good (if not stellar like the 24-70mm samples I’ve seen), image quality and is great at short distances. Having the fast AF and the useful range is a necessity for me here, which nothing else gives me, so I’ll work around it’s limitations with techniques. In other situations, like travel, I’ll keep using my Tamron; which is an excellent lens and so much lighter. I’m even thinking of getting the 16-85mm, which despite being a bit dark on the long end, gets so much praise.

Overall, I’m a bit disappointed about the AF issues, but then again my expectations are now that much more realistic. I’m also wondering if DX is a bit more limited in this respect than FX, as less light reaches the sensor. I certainly find it hard to accurately manual focus. Having a smaller sensor makes DX much more technology-dependant than FX; it’s harder to get a bright lens and to have wide-angles that don’t distort. The small image makes it harder to do accurate MF, which means we have to trust AF. By making such a serious attempt to get this right, the 17-55mm is an interesting lens and a very versatile one. Moving up from a 35-70mm f/2.8 this has given me wide-angles, normal and a short telephoto to boost. For millions of DX users out there, it is still the only pro-grade Nikon in this range that exists- and although it doesn’t offer terrific value for money, it still holds it own against the competitors I’ve come across, which are all compromised in some way or other by comparison.

The Best of DX?- Nikon’s AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 Lens

Nikon’s Pro DX Zoom

                                                             Summer Colours and Green
                                                           
Nikon’s elaborately named AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 DXG IF-ED DX (phew!) is probably the best zoom lens ever made for an APS-C sensor (where it functions as a 26-83mm lens), designed especially for the demands of professionals using it on older generations of pro bodies. Now that the prices of full-frame sensors have come down and pros are gravitating towards them them, anything but consumer-level designs for APS-C are unlikely, so this lens is probably the last of it’s kind. This fact though makes them much more avaliable second-hand though, with a newly affordable price.

What makes it stand out as a pro-grade lens is the build and fact that it gives a sharp, contrasty picture at any setting or length, with a certain richness to the images that you otherwise need a prime lens or another pro-level zoom to achieve. The high-grade AF-S focusing is also uncannily fast and near-silent.

                                                             Moth by Day

It produces amazing images, images that really ‘pop’ and stand out with a kind of 3D quality only great lenses have. I have some other really great lenses- the Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM, the older (but amazingly still produced) Nikon AF 35-70mm f/2.8D, the Tamron 90mm Di f2.8 macro, which can all take great photos, but the range and usability makes this the most versatile by far. It’s like it’s part of the camera and just doesn’t want to get off! I’m glad because I know that it’s about as good an image as a lens could give me, with a wedding you kind of feel bad if you know you could have used something better (even if no-one will notice the difference). For me, it means I can shoot the entire wedding without changing lenses. I used it just the other day and it worked out great! It also looks pro, which helps the general impression.

It cost me about $900 second-hand, but a new one would be more like $1,600. Another other cost is the size and weight, due to all the metal and glass, though for me this makes it steadier to hold or balance. Maybe after many hours of carrying it around it would weigh me down and this alone would put a lot of people off it. It should be added that the full-frame equivalents are much heavier and more expensive, without having quite as much reach, (usually being 24-70mm). This shows the convenience of the cropped format for many users. The fact that the images generated are ‘good enough’ means it will probably live on for many years. Also, the sensor on the D3X is so high resolution it can crop DX at 10MP, ample for most uses and even equal to the D200, which is still in wide use. Whilst the D700 only gives you a tight 5MP, a potential D700X or D800 might give you a lot more, making the use of this on FX cameras quite feasible.

Here’s a review that was just recently published in, of all places, Poland. The fact that reviews are still being professionally made for this lens just goes to sho it’s enduring value. In fact, I would hazard to say that it now has a new lease of life as a much more affordable lens on DX.

Let’s look at some pros and cons, now as who knows, maybe someone will actually think about buying one based on the strength of this review!? These are all based on my real-world usage, no measurebating or any exact accessment claimed, yet it’s quite possible such research would come to the same conclusions through it’s own route. Lens quality really does vary, no matter what anyone says and you usually get what you pay for, or in this case what you would have paid for if newer models hadn’t emerged (in this case the D700 and the siren cry of full-frame).

Pros

-Beautiful rendering of colours, contrast, skin-textures backgrounds
-A very pleasing bokeh considering the relatively short focal length
-Sharp and with little noticable distortion, even at 17mm
-Semi-macros are possible with excellent close-up performance and minimum focusing distance (14.2 inches)
-A good choice for portraits on DX (though I’d say Nikon’s 35-70mm f/2.8D is even better, for a number of reasons)
-The perfect event lens on DX- one lens and you’re done!
-The zoom is very well-damped, making settings at particular lengths (ie 24mm, 35mm) quite convenient
-Makes up for the lack of quality wide-angles on DX and covers significant prime lengths- some of which don’t even exist in -Nikon’s lineup, such as 19mm, which is about 28mm in FX (one of my favourite lengths and a fact not lost on Pentax)
-A pro implementation of AF-S, offering very fast, smooth and near-silent focusing
-Good prices on the second-hand market
-A true pro zoom- in terms of both performance and looks, ensuring people will realise you are, or mistake you for, a pro!

Cons

-Very heavy, like most true pro-zooms
-Still very expensive despite $900 ‘bargains’ being so avaliable
-Performance gains compared to buget alternatives may seem subtle to many users, especially when both are stopped down (though I’d say for me they are very significant)
-Optomised for wide open, close-up usage, making it unsuitable for landscapes in many people’s eyes
-Short reach, even on DX, where around 70mm is needed for the ‘optimum’ portrait length of 105mm (this gives around 83mm being ‘uncomfortably close’ for many)
-Could be redundant if you move to FX and aren’t happy with using it cropped there

Notice that some of the cons aren’t real cons, they just go with the territory. This is for sure an excellent lens (have I already said this?) and one you just will not regret buying!


What Does it all Mean for DX?

Even though full-frame ‘FX’ has finally come to Nikon’s DSLR’s, the options for serious amateurs on DX have never been better. The D200/300 are cheaper than ever and offer fantastic picture quality and ergonomics. Also, along with the price drop of the 17-55 is the emergence of other lenses especially designed with DX bodies and their frequent lack of an in-body motor (in the case of the D40, D60, D5000, all very affordable and even competetive with compact pricing). I speak of the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX, the 50mm f/1.4 G and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM- two of which I have actually aquired for both wedding and home use (though I’ll leave you to guess exactly which two for now!) In short, excellent lenses are now widely avaliable for DX use, compromises and beer-bottle zooms are less neccessary for the average user. Of course, the whole format is oversized in a sense, leaving the way open for minaturised ‘rangefinderesque’ versions like micro-4/3 and potentially a micro-APS… but that’s another story…

For more samples, please see my 17-55mm Pbase gallery.

Some Samples

Kashiwa Noha

Feeding the Pigeons


Hydrangeas and Snail-Shell

Silent Rush Hour

Straight, No Chaser.

A Traditional Photography Blog - dehk © 2016

ArchangelTravel

This WordPress.com site is the bee's knees

Simple Tom

Some say I was born high. Others say i'm just simple :)

A Girl and Her Backpack

Living life and packing my backpack to the fullest!

Where's my backpack?

Romancing the planet; a love affair with travel.

clumsyfool

How a weirdo sees the world...

Stephen Liddell

Musings on a mad world

Love 2 Type

because I get off hammering the keyboard

Travel & Liking

With Alex KHOO

Little Orange World

Me, My World, Anything I Love, and Scattered Mind of Mine.

Dorkdaddy.com

misadventures in raising two... wait, no THREE well-adjusted kids in the grandest dork-tradition

Sweet Rains

"He sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matt. 5:45)

sethsnap

Photographs from my world.

Myau Myau's photo gallery

flower, garden, Japanese temple & cat