gearhead – Ming Thein

Exclusive premiere: The full Leica X2 review

May 11, 2012 by Ming Thein

This morning has seen a flurry of news: the M9 Monochrom first (with a useable ISO 10,000 apparently!), then the Hermes M9-P, the 50/2 APO-Summicron-ASPH (ouch what a price tag), and trailing, the X2 and V-Lux 40. I wasn’t lucky enough to go to Berlin, so reviews of the first items will have to wait a bit. But I did manage to get a final production X2 in advance. The full review follows. Note that you can click through all images to larger versions on my Flickr page – the link takes you to the image landing page, and then the magnifying glass icon or ‘all sizes’ will take you to the larger images.

Leica’s 2009 X1 (my review is here) was a modern throwback to the Barnack era in many ways – fixed focal length lens, very simple controls, and that ‘elongated cylinder’ look. In short, it was a handsome camera that was, and still is, capable of delivering outstandingly good images; the sensor actually outperforms the M9 at ISO 1600 and above, deliver lower noise. I owned one of these for several months and used it as my daily camera, until I was lured by the siren song of the (flawed) X100.

X marks the spot.

The new flash mechanism

However, it was crippled in a number of ways – the moderate f2.8 lens speed being one, but focusing speed being by far the main one. A firmware update improved things somewhat, and brought a much improved manual focus mode (driven off the rear thumb wheel) which showed both distance and an in-focus scale that varied with the aperture selected.

Work in progress from above. Leica X2

The Leica X2 was officially launched in Berlin yesterday, along with a number of other products (which I hope to get my hands on soon); I’ve had a final production model for several days now, courtesy of Leica. It’s been enough time to shoot several hundred frames with the camera, get to know its quirks, and probe the elasticity of its files with every tool known to ACR and a Wacom tablet.**

Lagerfeld-style cool. Leica X2

**A note and advance disclaimer on processing: I ran the X2’s DNG files through ACR 6.7 and CS5.5, using my normal workflow. I process every file as though it was a final client delivery or exhibition piece, and that means two things: firstly, I’ll use every trick in the book I know to maximize image quality, but I do that with every camera I shoot, so that’s consistent; secondly, I shoot with the end in mind, especially once I get used to the tonal response of the sensor. For this reason, please don’t ask for out of camera JPEGS or RAW files, that’s not the way I work because it isn’t representative of the end use of the equipment. Some tests – the noise comparisons, for instance – are direct conversions via ACR with no additional work done on them. Where this is the case, it’s stated. One final thing: after the D800E vs S2 review, I think it’s necessary to also add the caveat that my observations are based on looking at full size 16 bit uncompressed files on a calibrated monitor, which will necessarily give rise to different conclusions than if you just see the compressed web size JPEGs in the article.

Taxi drivers (and dynamic range torture test). Leica X2

The first thing that strikes you is that it somehow feels better than the X1 – I am aware that this is a dangerously subjective comment to make – but the choice of materials seems a bit more solid; in fact, it seems like the camera has a bit more ‘stuff’ inside it. According to Leica, it’s about 30g heavier, which doesn’t sound like a lot, but you can feel it. It also seems like the body shells are a bit thicker, which contributes to the impression of solidity; the Leica X2 feels much closer to a mini-M than the X1 did. Perhaps it’s the black chrome and leather covers mine had. (I’m told it’ll also be available in silver).

Fitting the frame. Leica X2

Now would be a good time to talk about improvements. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it’s what you’d notice and appreciate as a serious photographer:
– AF speed is a LOT faster
– The top plate dials are much stiffer, and now don’t rotate accidentally
– Greatly improved LCD; supposedly still the same number of dots, but side by side with the old X1, it seems a lot clearer and more fluid.
– EVF shoe, and matching tiltable EVF which has great resolution.
– Battery life is significantly better
– Burst mode is faster.

Lazy observation. Leica X2

Let’s work down that list.

AF on the X1 was so slow that I’d use it only for static subjects, and zone focus the rest of the time. Not so here – it’s fine for casual snapshots, but like every contrast detect system, AF-C is best avoided. Even the best of the mirrorless cameras falls flat on its face (I’m looking at you, OM-D) – perhaps with the exception of the Nikon 1 system, but that’s cheating because it has phase detect photosites on its sensor. Subjectively, I’d say it’s definitely faster than my X100 was; about the same as my NEX-5 (sorry, haven’t used as 5N to compare) and similar to most of the Panasonic M4/3 cameras. Not as fast as the Olympus M4/3s, though. But just fast enough to stop you from feeling like you’re waiting for the camera.

Clouds and angles. Leica X2

The best news, however, is that it doesn’t slow down much in low light; so long as there’s a decent amount of contrast, focus acquisition speed remains about the same. And unlike the X-Pro1 and X10, it doesn’t freeze the image when focusing – the view remains live, so you can see what’s going on in your frame. Interestingly, the ‘H’ (high speed settings that did freeze the image) options for AF and macro focus settings are gone; the camera is faster than the H options now, and it will automatically switch to it if required. Sadly 30cm remains the near limit, however.

Images convert well to B&W, too. Leica X2

The X1’s LCD was pretty coarse; the X2’s is a significant improvement, but I don’t think it’s as good as say the Ricoh GRD IV – which has an amazing 1 million+ dot screen. Nevertheless, it’s now much easier to judge focus. Refresh rate seems to be a lot faster too; I’d say 60Hz instead of 30Hz. You can still use the optical finder if you want, but you’re still going to miss knowing exactly what the camera is focusing on; for the price and bulk, I’d much rather have the EVF, which is excellent. The fonts look grainy, but that’s only because it seems the UI designer didn’t specify enough DPI when encoding; the image itself is very, very fine indeed – you can’t really see individual pixels. It gains up well in low light, and isn’t too grainy.

I did an experiment with the EVF out of curiosity – the plug looked like any one of the existing EVF plugs. Expecting it to fit my D-Lux 5 Titanium, I was surprised when it didn’t; but it did fit my Olympus OM-D and Pen Mini. Even more interestingly, it worked! Draw whatever conclusion you wish; it’s a very nice EVF all the same, and my preferred way of working with the camera. Oh, and it tilts, too, and locks securely in the down position (something not all tiltable EVFs seem to manage.)

Through the keyhole. Leica X2

During the last few days, I shot over 500 frames with the Leica X2. With the X1, this would have meant two battery changes; I actually had three spares for mine, which would leave me with one left over after a heavy day of shooting. (I’m the kind of person who can finish off an entire EN-EL4a on a day’s assignment and add a five figure mileage to a camera in short order). The X2 showed half – that’s a pretty darn impressive performance, considering either the LCD or EVF were on the whole time, and I was using it frequently enough that it didn’t have time to slip into power save mode. It could be the effect of a more efficient sensor (the previous sensor was a relative of the one in the D90, which was notoriously power hungry in live view) or processing internals. This is on par with my current mirrorless long-life battery champ, the Pen Mini – which will easily hit a thousand frames per charge if used carefully.

Artificial everything. Leica X2

Finally, if you’re a flash shooter, good news! The leaf shutter remains, which means 1/2000s sync speeds (unheard of for most cameras) and the popup mechanism has been redesigned. It looks a lot more complicated, but I suspect that this is actually going to be more robust than the old press-to-raise-and-lower design – I’ve heard a lot of complaints about it being easy to break.

Untitled. Leica X2

You’ll notice I haven’t said anything about the sensor up til this point; that’s because you’re not going to notice it immediately upon shooting (duh). But what you will notice is an ISO 12,500 (no idea why it isn’t 12,800, i.e. double 6400) setting. It’s APS-C, so I didn’t expect it to be useable. What’s nice to report is that the new 16.5 MP CMOS used is class leading in every way. It even manages 5fps continuous shooting for eight frames, but the penalty is that you have to wait while the camera writes the files – it doesn’t seem to buffer in parallel. This is true whether you shoot one or eight frames. As for the sensor, I suspect we may actually have seen a relative of it before in other products, most notably one with three zeroes or an N in its name. This is a good thing.

Obligatory night test shot. ISO 3200. Leica X2

Let’s get noise out of the way: it’s all luminance. Shooting DNG, with zero noise reduction, I’d happily use ISO 3200 with a bit of work; there’s a big jump in noise to ISO 6400, which renders that and the top 12500 setting strictly for those shots of the Loch Ness Monster assassinating JFK. Or perhaps they might work well for you if you like extremely grainy B&W conversions. Even with NR zeroed out in ACR, I’m seeing some smearing at 3200 and up, but it’s less obvious at the two highest settings because of the overriding luminance noise. You might be able to retain more acuity by shooting 1600 and underexposing a stop, then bringing it up again in the raw converter afterwards. It isn’t too bad, but you’ll notice it’s there. All in all, the Leica X2 is up there with the best of the APS-C cameras, and frankly feels like it would give my D700 a run for its money on luminance noise, but loses out on dynamic range. Pixel level acuity remains excellent, though some files seem to require an extra sharpening pass – it may be the effects of diffraction starting to creep in at f8 and up.

Some noise crops follow below. Click on the links for 100% versions.
Crop one
Crop two
Crop three

The X2 seems to have its own color signature that is different enough from the X1 that my initial experiment to use the same ACR profiles was unsuccessful. It’s tonal map also doesn’t match the Ms; dynamic range seems to be somewhat bunched in the shadows (which I don’t see on the more linear-response CCD sensors in the M and S cameras) and the relatively low noise floor responds well to shadow recovery. If anything, the color is much closer to being ‘accurate’ than any Leica to date – the skin tones are great, at least in RAW. White balance is similarly excellent – I made very, very few corrections to color; this is highly unusual for my workflow. Have to watch the red channel closely though, it doesn’t take much to hit saturation. Note that neither display gives an accurate idea of exposure or color, though. Using the histograms is highly recommended.

Pudu Plaza. Any photographer in KL will recognize this place. They’ll also recognize that the reds are both accurate and not accurate; they’re a little hot but the tone is mostly right. Leica X2

Although I’d never personally shoot JPEG with any camera, given the option – especially something whose files have as lot of processing latitude, like the Leica X2 – I know a lot of potential buyers might well do so, so I also had a close look at the native JPEG image quality. I’m pleased to report that it produces crisp, detailed files with very few artifacts; there are some customization parameters if you have a particular preference for how your files look. However, by default, the output is best described as neutral. Skin tones are still definitely better in DNG; there’s something about skin color that just seems out of gamut for most in-camera JPEG conversions.

Yellow men. This color is accurate, and identical to the scene. Leica X2

A comment on file formats, and a gripe I had with the original X1 – I don’t know why the camera can’t write DNG only – you have to do DNG+JPEG, which seems like a waste of space and buffer. Still, for single frame shooting (I can’t actually think why you’d use bursts on this camera) there isn’t any noticeable penalty in operation.

The fountain. Leica X2

There are a few other minor things that could be improved – as always. We can never have AF that’s too fast, or too continuous; in all fairness, this is a comment leveled at every camera, and the latter to mirrorless cameras in particular. The rear control dial is now far too loose and difficult to turn in single increments – especially when trying to apply exposure compensation. What would be nice is that when shooting, exposure compensation is the default setting like on the M9; but we’d definitely need a stiffer dial for that. The odd electronic stabilization ‘feature’ remains; I’d avoid it because it just gives me double images. A proper optical stabilizer would be nice, but at least we have the option not to use it.

Yawn; just another camera? Certainly a very stealthy one; nobody once gave me a second look when I was shooting them. Especially if using the finder flipped up at 90 degrees. Leica X2.

I have a little beef with the top plate dials. On every other Leica, all exposure adjustments move in half stop increments/ detents. On the X1 and X2, you get whole stops for shutter speeds, and third stops for aperture – what’s up here? Size of the shutter dial can’t be a reason, because the M9 has more speeds and is the same size – and still gives half stop detents. I like the increased dial tension, but can we please have consistency in exposure increments?

‘Hi, I’m doing a survey. Let me probe your brain for a moment.’ Leica X2

Finally, there’s the lens. It gives me mixed feelings. On one hand, it’s an excellent optic; the biting sharpness, excellent corner performance (it was after all, supposedly designed for full frame originally) microcontrast structure and general transparency which was one of the image quality hallmarks of the X1 is still there. On the other hand, it’s relatively slow at f2.8 – not a problem given the newfound low-light capabilities of the sensor; however, it doesn’t really allow isolation, and that’s one of the things people seem to expect from a Leica. Another stop – or even two – might make for some beautiful bokeh (I know I’ve seen it from the 24/1.4 Summilux-ASPH M, but then again that’s also a physically enormous and hugely expensive lens).

Reflections. Some of you might recognize this building. Leica X2

Whilst the lens delivered almost perfect results from wide open on the X1, the X2’s slightly higher density sensor seems to be pushing the resolving power a little – images shot at f2.8 are definitely a little softer than f4; it’s almost as though there’s a slight AA-filter effect at f2.8. This is easily solvable with a second sharpening pass, and doesn’t seem to materially affect the microcontrast structure of the image. Thereafter everything is good until you run into diffraction, a hint of which is visible at f8 and obvious by f11.

Yes? Yes? Not today. Leica X2

Technical improvements are all well and good for the spec sheet and marketing people, but where does this leave us in terms of real-world usability? The X concept was almost certainly conceived by a photographer; it’s a combination of M and point and shoot that should in theory allow anybody to create images with that ‘Leica look’ (which I think most lay people mistake for bokeh, but is actually a combination of that, color transmission, sharpness, focus transition and microcontrast – but let’s not get started here) with minimal fuss. It failed fundamentally because it was too slow to be useable. However, it did have one overriding redeeming quality – the image quality was truly outstanding.

Untitled. Leica X2

The X2 takes the image quality even further, but more importantly now feels like a mature product. It’s a better distillation of the M gestalt, and definitely easier to use for the simple reason that it’s more responsive to shoot with. During the course of testing, I never felt like I lost a shot because the camera was too slow; I definitely did with the X1 and X100. There’s no single feature or area that makes you go WOW, but the combination of improvements makes it a very compelling little camera that just does its thing and delivers the most important thing – image quality – in spades. Here’s an interesting thought: if you shoot in low light a lot, you’ll probably want to get one of these instead of an M9 – the sensor is that good.

The escape route. Leica X2

What does the future hold for the X system? Purely speculating, I think it’s unlikely we’ll ever see interchangeable lenses – it doesn’t make sense to develop new lenses given there’s already M mount, and M mount has a digital solution; the cost of developing an all-new mount and AF lens lineup is going to be pretty staggering, which would price the camera in M territory. Rather, that would make sense as a future evolution of the M line – something compatible with new autofocus lenses, as well as the older manual focus lenses. I can’t see how a rangefinder fits into this, though – the end product would probably be very Fuji X-Pro like, which overly complicates things and is far from the Leica design philosophy. But at the very least, I think the X2 needs a telephoto or long normal companion – this would be a killer studio camera due to the leaf shutter and high speed sync. And a pair of those would cover most travel photographers’ needs, without sacrificing image quality.

Time will tell. In the meantime, deciding which mirrorless camera to augment your primary system just got a lot tougher for us photographers. MT

Review complete; happy hour. Leica X2

Addendum, 10.30am 11 May 2012: My sleep-depreived brain has just remembered there’s one thing I forgot to mention: movie mode, or the lack of it. Whilst this sensor must clearly be video capable to produce the live feed, Leica has chosen not to implement a movie mode of any sort; I personally don’t see this as as huge issue as I don’t do video anyway. In any case, the inability to easily follow focus is probably a bigger impediment for moviemaking than the fixed focal length. I’d see video capability here as a nice to have, but not critical. Besides, the V-Lux 3 and D-Lux 5 are much easier to use for video, if you must have a Leica. I’ll be sticking to my D800E for the few times I do need video. MT

The Leica X2 is available in both black and silver here from B&H and Amazon.

____________

Visit our Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including Photoshop Workflow DVDs and customized Email School of Photography; or go mobile with the Photography Compendium for iPad. You can also get your gear from B&H and Amazon. Prices are the same as normal, however a small portion of your purchase value is referred back to me. Thanks!

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews, Leica Tagged With: cameras, equipment, gearhead, leica, leica x2, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, photography, street, test, thein, x2, x2 review, x2 test

Lens review: The Nikon AF-S 85/1.4 G

May 7, 2012 by Ming Thein

Untitled still life. Nikon D700, AF 85/1.4 D with extension tubes.

Let me start by giving you a bit of my fast 85mm history. I never saw the big deal about this focal length until I went full frame; and even then, not til I got a D700 and the f1.4 D version in late 2009. Up til that point, it was just another forlorn intermediate marking on the barrel of my 70-200 or 70-300mm lenses.

Tea plantation, Cameron Highlands. Nikon D700, AF 85/1.4 D

After The First Leica Period, I had to find a lens to satisfy my bokeh addiction – it would spiritually replace the Leica 50/1.4 ASPH and Voigtlander 50/1.1; since all of the Nikon mount fast 50s were frankly pretty weak, and after the M8’s 1.3x crop factor, 50mm becomes 75mm, 85mm was the natural choice. I went for the Nikon AF-D 85/1.4 – the screwdriver focus version – and had a love/ hate relationship with it. On one hand, it delivered amazing bokeh, and great sharpness and separation of planes; use it at f2 and smaller apertures for optimal performance.

Ticketed. Nikon D90, AF 85/1.4 D

But what I didn’t like was that it missed focus frequently owing to the backlash in the focusing system, and often wouldn’t be able to move the elements enough to take care of small changes in distance. And then there was the edge softness, and CA…which was perhaps the worst I’ve ever seen in a modern lens design. Wide open, on a high contrast edge, you’d get a good 2-3 pixels PLUS some sort of interesting ‘bloom’ that would span anywhere up to a further 5 pixels – on a 12MP FX body, which is already fairly forgiving of lenses.

On set. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF 1.4/85 Planar

Enter the Zeiss ZF 1.4/85 Planar. Not only did it have minimal CA, and somehow deliver 2/3rds of a stop more shutter speed for a given aperture setting (no doubt the T* coating had something to do with the hugely increased T stop) – it also delivered micro contrast and color transmission that was absolutely out of this world. In fact, the ability to reproduce fine structures went far beyond anything that I’d seen from Nikon glass – and I was pleasingly reminded of the 2/28 Distagon I also owned.

Construction, Putrajaya. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF 1.4/85 Planar

There is, of course, one catch: it wasn’t easy to focus. There was definitely some focus shift on stopping down; I solved that problem by shooting it wide open all the time – and with bokeh like that, I can’t think why anybody would want to stop it down in the first place. But more than that, depth of field – as expected – was about the thickness of two sheets of paper. Maybe two and a half, if you had a more distant subject.

Arches. Perbadanan Putrajaya. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF 1.4/85 Planar

The Nikon AF-S 85mm f1.4 G ED IF N SWM (full name). Image from Nikon USA.

When Nikon released the updated AF-S 85/1.4 G in late 2010, I jumped. I didn’t intend to, but a brief test drive at my ~~dealer~~ purveyor of addictive substances confirmed my worst fears: it was not only on par optically with the Zeiss (at least on the D700), it also focused by itself, and was able to do so with precision, thanks to the AFS motor.

Left out. Nikon D5100, AFS 85/1.4 G

On the D700, 12MP and 16MP FX bodies, I still think it’s an amazing piece of glass. You get all of the good properties of the Zeiss – high transmission, smooth bokeh, great micro contrast, broad spectral transmission, that 3D look, almost no CA – lateral or longitudinal – but with precise, fast autofocus. It’s also slightly sharper in the edges and corners than the Zeiss was.

Pipe man, Nikon D5100, AFS 85/1.4 G

There really isn’t a lot to say beyond that it’s a) almost perfect on these bodies and b) eye-wateringly expensive. It was, and still is, my favorite lens for the D700 – fully 7% of all the images on my flickr stream were shot with it (which is amazing when you consider the number of cameras I use, and the number of lenses I’ve got.)

Rickshaw man, Kathmandu. Nikon D700, AFS 85/1.4 G

Which is why my subsequent experience with it on the D800 is very, very confusing indeed. It doesn’t focus accurately or quickly; in fact, it tends to hunt more than a little, and doesn’t snap to focus with the certainty of the D700. (Although this could be my body, with it’s AF sensor misalignment and other peculiarities – I’ll report back again once I’ve had a chance to do extensive testing with the replacement D800E). It also isn’t that sharp, even on center. Before you ask, it isn’t an AF fine tune issue – even focusing in live view yields similar ‘best case’ optical results. It gets better – or perhaps worse – there’s also now very visible longitudinal chromatic aberration, something I’ve never seen with this lens on the D700; this color shifting also causes reduction in contrast and visible degradation of sharpness.

Failure to launch. Nikon D700, AFS 85/1.4 G

To top everything off, I find that if I calibrate the lens for close distances, then it’s off at infinity. And vice versa. Again – not behavior I’ve ever seen with any other body I’ve used this lens on. To be sure, I tested three samples, and several D800 bodies – they were all the same. I think it’s one of those unfortunate cases where the optical design doesn’t play nice with the new low pass filter or whatever other optical elements happen to be sitting in front of the new sensor.

No trekking today. Kathmandu. Nikon D700, AFS 85/1.4 G

If you stop down to f2, most of the oddness goes away. By f2.8, the lens becomes its perfect self again – but we didn’t pay for the extra stop to use it at f2.8; perplexingly, the (optically) much simpler AF-S 85/1.8G (no nano coating, no aspherical elements, no ED glass, no RF or IF even) is perfect at f1.8, and stays that way – the f1.4G needs to stop down to f2.8 to match it. Of course, you do loose about 2/3 stop of transmission between the two lenses, so something has to be said for the value of the fancy coatings and optics in the f1.4G.

A great lens for ‘sniping cinematic moments’. Nikon D700, AFS 85/1.4 G

Still. Surprising, no?

It’s a pity, because I really, really wanted to use this lens on the D800 – the sensor’s ability to reproduce very fine tonal gradations and subtle color nuances goes beyond anything else I’ve used; that combined with the 85/1.4 G’s resolving power and optical qualities (seen on the D700 at any rate) would have made a formidable combination for cinematic photography. Alas, it looks like I’m going to either have to buy the 85/1.8G to use on the D800, or stick with the D700/85/1.4G combo for now.

Stall chefs. Nikon D800, AFS 85/1.4 G

Can I recommend the lens? For D800 users, honestly, no. You’re better served by the 85/1.8G; use the balance of funds for other glass, or buy one of my prints with some of the money you’ve saved (shameless plug). It simply lacks the crispness I’ve seen with other bodies. For D700, D3, D3s and DX users: absolutely yes, it’s a stunning piece of glass, and has become my go-to lens together with the 24/1.4. I don’t know why it isn’t the case on the D800 since it has similar pixel density to the D7000, with which the lens does an excellent job – but it just isn’t. Now, what might be an interesting combination is D800 + Zeiss 1.4/85 Planar; I’d rather not find out in case I have to buy something. Having three 85mm lenses would be utterly ridiculous, wouldn’t it? 🙂 MT

Kathmandu. Not just a portrait lens; it’s great for reproducing the fine detail in landscapes, too. Nikon D700, AFS 85/1.4 G

The Nikon AFS 85/1.4 G is available here from B&H and Amazon.

____________

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: afs 85/1.4 g, gearhead, lens review, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, nikon, review, thein

An unfair fight? 35mm vs Medium Format: Nikon D800E and the Leica S2-P

May 5, 2012 by Ming Thein

I want to say upfront that until I did the test, I had no idea how the result was going to turn out. What I suspected wasn’t quite the outcome that occurred; but you’re going to have to read on to find that out 🙂 I apologize in advance, because what was supposed to be a quick A-B image comparison has turned into a 3,500 word dissertation. There are a lot of things that must be said, clarified and put into context when dealing with these cameras.

The best conceived test is completely useless if the methodology isn’t sound; likewise, a seemingly unfair fight can be actually relevant if properly executed. Both cameras are in the high 30MP range; 36.3MP for the Nikon D800E, and 37.5MP for the Leica S2. Close enough to make as near as no difference. (Also, the S2-P is the same camera as the S2 except for the sapphire cover over the screen and professional service.) Everything was shot at base ISO on a sturdy tripod (a heavy Manfrotto 444 Carbon One with Hydrostat head) and mirror lockup. Lossless compressed RAW for both, with files processed via ACR 6.7 final release with equal sharpening, zero noise reduction, and equal shadow/highlight recovery slider settings. Images were then saved as quality 12 jpegs – the full frame shots you see are reference for color only, not resolution of course – and the 100% crops are also quality 12 jpegs. There is some minor quality degradation but not a lot. The first cityscape had both cameras set to the same Kelvin temperature for white balance, however subsequent shots were point balanced in ACR to the same location as this was more representative of real-life workflow.

In addition to outdoor subjects – the dynamic range torture test – I also shot a number of indoor subjects to test both front and back bokeh, sharpness, high ISO performance, lens performance in the macro range, and a trial run for something I’d use both cameras for – watch photography.*

Similarly, I matched lenses as closely as possible; we chose the best for each system. Not difficult with the S2 – all of the lenses are incredible, and nearly flawless. It is simply one of the highlights of the system; there are no lenses worse than excellent. And each lens has its own calibration firmware embedded at the factory, to ensure perfect focus on every camera body – why other manufacturers don’t do this is beyond me. I certainly wouldn’t have had the D800 AF issue if this was the case. I used the Leica 35/2.8 Summarit-S and 120/2.5 APO-Macro-Summarit-S on the S2, and the Zeiss ZF.2 2/28 Distagon and Nikon 85/2.8 PCE Micro-Nikkor on the D800E – both lenses I consider to be the best of their focal length in F mount.

Focusing was done either via the AF system (and results checked via live view or manually bracketed) to achieve optimum sharpness. Everything was shot within minutes of each other, so there should be minimal differences in lighting. There will be some differences in the final watch shot as I couldn’t get the tripod to hold in that overhead position with the weight of the S2; the shot was handheld and there are some minor differences in lighting due to watch positioning and reflections.

*I shot part of an architectural assignment recently with the S2, 30mm and 70mm lenses; see an upcoming On Assignment for the rest of that article.

Part one: Cityscape – dynamic range and resolution test. Zeiss 2/28 and Leica 30/2.5

The full D800E + Zeiss ZF.2 2/28 Distagon frame

The full Leica S2 + 35/2.5 Summarit-S frame

The first obvious thing is that the color response of both sensors is hugely different, despite both being set to the same color temperature; I’m guessing it has to do with many factors, including a) CMOS vs CCD architecture; b) the nature of the Bayer algorithm used and the color filter array layout; c) internal signal processing and ‘company color profile’; d) ACR’s interpretation of the files.

The D800E’s file looks quite natural but is a touch too warm; the S2 is very blue-green biased and would make for great landscapes, however it doesn’t get the color right either. Both cameras could be corrected to accurate (as their sensors’ tonal response is broad enough) however neither gets it right out of the box. The S2 has slightly better dynamic range – perhaps half a stop or so – but there isn’t a lot in it. Neither camera has blown areas or blocked up shadows.

D800E 100% center crop, at f2.5

D800E 100% center crop, at f8.

S2 100% center crop, at f2.5

S2 100% center crop, at f8

In the center, the Zeiss/D800E combination is already excellent at f2.5 (set to match the S2) and barely improves at f8. The Leica, however, is even better at f2.5 (wide open!) and seems to soften a bit at f8. I repeated this test several times with the same result – the lens is best used wide open, it seems.

D800E 100% edge crop, at f8

S2 100% edge crop, at f8

The corners tell a very different story; the Zeiss/D800E is very good, but the Leica is outstanding. The former has clear softening due to CA at high contrast edges (note white building) due to field curvature; the Leica shows none of this whatsoever and is sharp enough to show minor evidence of color moire (!). This is best seen in the air conditioning condensers in the windows of the white building.

Note – shadow noise here is high because I’ve run a 50/50 setting for the shadow/highlight slider to maximize dynamic range.

Part two: Indoors, wide-angle bokeh test and flare test

D800E + Zeiss ZF.2 2/28 Distagon full frame

S2 + 35/2.5 Summarit-S full frame

There’s really not a lot in this one – both images look great. Color is accurate, and bokeh is pleasant – though I’d give the edge to the S2 because the highlight rolloff is a little smoother; which no doubt has much to do with the dynamic range of the sensor. What is noticeable here is vignetting on the D800E/ Zeiss combination; almost a stop. I guess it’s one of the factors that contributes to the cinematic look of the Zeiss. The Leica has zero vignetting, despite being shot wide open. Depth of field is about the same; the D800E/ Zeiss was shot at f2, and the Leica at f2.5.

D800E 100% center crop, at f2

S2 100% center crop, at f2.5

Both lenses are commendable in the way they handle the strong backlight with almost no flare; the coatings on both are superb and you see very little of the first few elements. However, on closer inspection at 100%, we see the Zeiss has a definite purple fringe, and the Leica appears almost completely apochromatic. I’d say resolution here is a tie.

Part three: telephoto bokeh and flare test

D800E + 85/2.8 PCE full frame

S2 + 120/2.5 APO full frame

We’ve now switched lenses to the short tele macros; the 85/2.8 PCE on the D800E, and the 120/2.5 APO-Macro-Summarit on the S2. The tripod was moved between shots to try to match the angle as the Leica 120 is about 95mm equivalent; I don’t have the AFS 105/2.8 VR handy, and besides, I think the 85/2.8 PCE is a better lens anyway – the micro contrast structure is a lot more refined, and LoCA is lower.

The D800E seems to have a slight dynamic range advantage here, though it could be due to exposure. Bokeh from the S2 is definitely better, as would be expected from a lens that’s both faster and longer. Both lens/ camera combinations deliver a very 3D feel, and pleasant foreground bokeh – something that’s frequently ignored by photographers, but contributes heavily to a workable defocused foreground as part of the composition or not.

D800E 100% center crop at f4

S2 100% center crop at f4

On closer inspection, we see both lenses are easily capable of matching the resolving power of the sensor; if forced to choose, I’d give a hair to the Leica, but there’s almost nothing in it. Where there is a difference is in longitudinal chromatic aberration (‘bokeh fringing’) which is very obvious on the Nikon crop, but almost completely absent from the Leica – the 120mm is an APO lens, after all. This may contribute to the overall impression of the Leica being slightly sharper. Interestingly, the micro contrast structure and color transmission between the two lenses is very similar indeed, which is to say very neutral.

Part four: high ISO test

D800E full frame, ISO 1250

S2 full frame, ISO 1250

The same scene, again – however, this time at ISO 1250, which is the upper limit for the S2. The D800E can of course go a lot higher – to 25,600 – but I wouldn’t touch this with a barge pole. Notice the reduction in dynamic range for both cameras – more so on the S2, as expected from its CCD sensor architecture. Color transmission is commendably consistent between the two. In case you’re not convinced it’s dark, exposure time was 1/40s at f4 ISO 1250 for both cameras. Although this isn’t pushing the limits of the Nikon with it’s CMOS sensor, it is pretty much forbidden territory for most medium format systems.

D800E 100% center crop, ISO 1250 f4

S2 100% center crop, ISO 1250 f4

THe S2 displays a similar noise profile to the M9 at the pixel level; this of course isn’t surprising because they share the same base sensor architecture from Kodak. It is clear that both cameras are showing noise (there is zero NR applied here; it could be much improved by judicious use of the noise reduction tools in ACR). The D800E’s noise pattern is very fine grained luminance noise only; there’s a hint of chroma noise in the S2, but it’s still mostly luminance. I’d put it at being 1.5-2 stops behind the D800E. This is clearly not an available light camera; frankly, neither one is; I’d pick a D3s or D4. Detail retention for both cameras is still excellent, with the edge again going to the Leica – more clearly this time – perhaps the Nikon is applying some noise reduction on its raw files (though I switched this option off in camera.)

Part five: practical applications

D800E + 85/2.8 PCE full frame

S2 + 120/2.5 APO full frame

What you see here is a processed (but un-retouched – that would take too long) final photo achieved with multiple Nikon flashes – triggered via CLS on the D800, or via an optical SU4 trigger on the S2 – which is representative of the kind of shoot I’d use either camera for. Of course, this doesn’t take into account the minimum practical frame size on the D800E being about 10x7mm, vs 60x90mm for the S2.

The S2 image pops more – it could be due to a slight change in camera position for reasons mentioned earlier – but I suspect it may be due to the Leica 120mm having slightly higher overall contrast than the Nikon PCE. Both cameras have done outstandingly well; I like both images very much. Color is commendably accurate after adjustment.

D800E 100% center crop, f5.6

S2 100% center crop, f5.6

Close up, there’s there’s a bite to the S2 image that’s lacking from the D800E; somehow the finest structures aren’t being completely transmitted by the lens; it seems the S2 lenses have more micro contrast. Once again, both images were shot at the same aperture, but somehow the S2 appears to have a hair more resolution and acuity.

Part six: specific comments on the Leica S2

There are a lot of things I like about this camera. It’s the first Leica system designed from the ground up in a long time, and it shows. There’s DNA from the R9 ‘Hunchback of Solms’ about the way the shoulders of the camera slope, the gigantic shutter dial, and the almost vertical shutter release (which is a great design choice, by the way – squeezing the grip greatly reduces camera shake compared to a vertical plane release). Even the power switch positioning is reminiscent of that lever on the R9 whose function I’d never been able to figure out. In fact, it’s pretty amazing that they managed to fit such an enormous viewfinder inside that prism hump – it’s not much bigger than the D800E’s hump, in fact (though the latter also contains a pop up flash).

Despite the legacy DNA, the control system is well thought out and remarkably simple – four hot keys around the LCD have soft functions; selections and scrolling are taken care of by the thumb wheel, which also clicks in to select or change exposure mode. It’s a very elegant and easy to use system. The camera and lenses are also fully weather sealed, with elaborately precise flanged gaskets that make the Nikon look positively crude by comparison. (Strangely, I was also told that it was probably not a good idea to shoot with the camera in the local monsoon rain). Build quality is excellent; it feels like a solid block of metal (and weighs about the same too, but a lot of this is attributable to the lenses), and there are very few external screws except on the base, which is rubberized; I’d say it’s a level above even the D4. The mirror mechanism is remarkably well damped, and for such a large mirror, blackout time is negligible. The one thing I don’t like about the ergonomics is the hand grip; that odd finger cut just doesn’t seem like it was made for Asian hands.

The viewfinder is enormous – as expected for medium format – and hugely addictive, being both of high magnification and high eye point. In fact, magnification is about 100% with the 70mm, which means you can comfortably shoot with both eyes open. I never thought I’d say this, but it makes the D800E’s finder feel like a dark tunnel. And there’s no comparison when it comes to ease of manual focus – though the D800E does of course have live view. Battery life is excellent, too – in my time shooting with the S2, I’ve never been able to make the charge indicator move more than a small fraction even during a heavy day of shooting with several hundred images. I’d estimate you’d get at least a thousand, possibly even two thousand, images off one charge.

The crown jewel of the system, however, has to be the lenses. The S system lenses are hands down the most impressive optics I’ve ever used; they’re almost flawless wide open, even in the corners, and even more perfect than the best M system lenses. And they focus themselves! Sadly they’re also enormous and heavy – which I suppose is the price paid for perfection. The 120 macro is almost the size of a 70-200 VR.

It’s not all roses, though. The S2 doesn’t work well as an available light camera; it’s very difficult to nail critical focus, stop camera or subject motion, and still stay within the good quality ISO range. I’d go to ISO 640 with reservations, and 1250 in emergencies. But then again, it was never supposed to be. The LCD could be improved, and some parts of the menu just look crude. The reverse-turning (at least relative to Nikon) aperture dial is also immensely confusing; I wish they put an option in the menu to allow users to reverse the direction. Autofocus is precise, but by no means fast; with the 120 APO-Macro it might take a while as the focusing helicoid nearly runs a full 360 degree turn of the barrel.

Part seven: specific comments on the Nikon D800E

You can find plenty of my thoughts on the nearly identical D800’s detailed first impressions review.

After a month of using the sibling of this camera in various ways, my opinion still hasn’t changed: it’s a game changer as far as image quality in the small format goes. There isn’t anything that can touch it, and the D800E stretches that bar even further. I thought the image quality of the M8 was good, but this is like having two M8 sensors welded together side by side – that’s a noticeable increase in resolution.

The D800E does require care with regards to moire; I’ve seen it several times already during my very short time with the camera. Both luminance and chrominance moire are possible; watch carefully with high frequency repeating patterns such as architectural detail or fabrics.

It’s a shame, however, that most of Nikon’s lenses don’t seem up to the task. They have built a monster of a camera body capable of incredible resolution and color that seems to have outstripped the rest of the system somewhat – very, very few Nikkors can do the sensor justice. The PCEs are a safe bet, as are most of the Zeiss lenses; of the AF glass, be careful with the primes. Yes, there were focusing problems, yes, they’re being repaired, and yes, my D800E is much better than the D800 – though still affected to a very slight degree. Enough that I’ll be careful, but not a deal breaker as most of my work with the D800E will be done under controlled studio circumstances with longer lenses.

Conclusion

What I find interesting is that we’re at a convergence point: my complaints of the S2 are because I’m treating it like a normal SLR; on the opposite hand, I’m expecting medium format quality from the D800E. This says a lot: both cameras have achieved and surpassed their design objectives. The Leica S2 was designed to make medium format easy and convenient; it does – to the point where we forget that we’re shooting with medium format. The D800E was supposed to raise 35mm-format DSLRs into the medium format realm; it does. I don’t think I’ll ever take the D800E with me on holiday; I’d certainly pack something lighter, smaller and less demanding to shoot. But I can offer my clients a new level of quality, but without the limitations of medium format (wireless TTL flash, magnification, focal length selection). By the same token, I’m quite happy walking around with the S2 and 70/2.5 (which is my favorite lens for the S system) and treating it as I would my M9-P. Both have a place in the photographer’s arsenal; however, you probably shouldn’t buy either unless you know you’re going to use the resolution – and in that case, the S2 wins on the quality its lens system.

You’ve probably read all the way to the end of this review hoping I’ll pronounce one better than the other; the reality isn’t that clear cut. The Leica S2 wins on lens quality (by a large margin), resolution (by a hair), dynamic range (though this may be debatable) and build; the D800E wins on color, practical usability (ISO 6,400 at medium format resolutions, anybody?), lens selection, speed and portability.

I honestly like both cameras and systems very much; I don’t think I could pick between the two if money weren’t an issue. The reality is that unless you’re going to torture your files and print them at enormous sizes, the D800E does deliver much better value for money. However, you’re going to have to spend a lot of money on lenses to do the sensor justice – that is if you can even find anything suitable; this lens selection is very, very small; and it’s also not cheap. I’d give the edge overall to the S2; because of the matched lenses, it feels like a more complete system, but you’ve got to climb a steep diminishing returns slope to get there. However, with the ever rising pixel densities of lower end cameras – 24MP APS-C, for instance – I’d be surprised if there wasn’t an even higher resolution D4x in the future, and given the undoubtedly huge investment for Leica, this is just the beginning of the S system. MT

Note: I don’t think I’ll be doing a direct comparison with the regular D800 as I no longer have one handy; however what I will do is try to dig out some similar files and do an approximate comparison that way. What I see from the D800E definitely has higher acuity at the pixel level, though I’ve also seen clear evidence of color and luminance moire – much in line with expectations.

____________

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews, Leica Tagged With: comparison, d800e, gearhead, leica, leica s2, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, nikon, nikon d800e, review, s2, shootout, thein

Long term review postponed: The Nikon D800

May 1, 2012 by Ming Thein

I was originally going to post a long term review of the Nikon D800 today, but seeing as my camera has been autofocus-crippled and I’ve only used it under studio conditions with manual focus, it wouldn’t be fair. Instead I’ll roll my conclusions into the D800 vs D800E review which will go up later this month, once my camera arrives – I’m told later this week.

But what I can say is that the sensor is absolutely stunning, and remains one of the best, if not the best I’ve ever used – at least in 35mm format (sorry, I haven’t had a chance to shoot with the H4D-50MS or IQ180 backs). And it definitely provides more flexibility than anything larger; you can use the high ISOs, you can shoot faster than 1fps with it, it can do video…and I’ve not run out of useable dynamic range yet. Yes, the product definitely has some early teething troubles – and I’m not for one minute saying that we should let Nikon off the hook, because it is a lot of money – but if you stop for a minute and think about what we’re actually getting, it’s pretty amazing. Ten years ago, the same money got you a D100: the output from that camera was so soft that you wouldn’t even know if you were having edge AF issues or not; in fact, nobody would think to use the edge AF points for anything other than viewfinder decoration because they were that inaccurate.

I don’t know how many more large leaps in technology we’re going to see at the advanced consumer/ pro level – look at the incremental changes to the flagship Nikon and Canons – but I honestly feel the D800 is a game changer in the sense that it’s now truly made the next step in image quality accessible at a much lower price point than before; forget the Pentax 645D. But the same caveat always remains: just because you can afford the tool, doesn’t mean you know how to use it properly. And no amount of money can replace dedication and hard work in achieving photographic results. Then again, I suppose you could just buy a large print. MT

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: d800, gearhead, long-term, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, nikon, review, test, thein

Stabilization systems and their limitations

April 28, 2012 by Ming Thein

Image stabilization systems are all meant to do one thing: reduce the effects of camera shake to prevent you from getting blurry images. If you know that, and know their limitations, you’ll find them very useful; if not, you’ll wonder why you can’t get a sharp picture of a racing car even though you’ve got an IS lens.

Rule 1: Stabilization systems are not a replacement for proper technique or support.
If you have good hand-holding technique or a tripod, you can always get a sharp image at shutter speeds below the 1/focal length threshold. No issue. If you don’t, then a stabilizer will help a bit, but it can’t prevent your finger from jerking when you press the button – that’s training. You can’t use a stabilizer for a long exposure, either. There’ll still be camera motion because it’s physically impossible for a person to stand that still. Lean the camera against something or get a tripod. It will help you when you’re shooting from an unstable platform – such as a boat or moving vehicle – but make sure you disable the lens’ panning mode to prevent it from canceling out motion in one direction only, believing it to be panning rather than irregular camera movement.

Rule 2: Stabilization systems will not affect subject motion.
The stabilizer is in the lens, or on the sensor. Either way, it’s attached to your camera. Not the subject. But you’d be surprised how many people think that VR or IS or OSS or SSS or whatever will also keep the bird still for you to get the shot. It won’t. Your subject is still bound by the same minimum shutter speed rules as all other subjects: about 1/30s-1/60s for people, 1/500s for human action sports, 1/1000s for motorsport, and somewhere between the two for animals.

Rule 3: Stabilization systems have an optimal window of shutter speeds.
Generally, if the manufacturer claims an X number of stops improvement, then deduct one and use that as a rule of thumb. So if a lens offers four stops, then your lowest shutter speed is going to be 1/focal length x (1/2)^(X-1). Confused? Example: 100mm lens with 4-stop stabilizer. Don’t expect sharp shots any slower than 1/100s x (1/2)^(4-1) – that’s somewhere between 1/10s and 1/15s.

What they don’t tell you is that there’s an upper limit to stabilizer effectiveness, too. Above a certain shutter speed, the stabilizer mechanism can’t respond fast enough – so you’re actually going to get a bit of smearing or double imaging. In general, I’d turn it off above 1/500s or so.

Rule 4: Not all stabilizers are created equal.
There are three types of stabilization: lens-based, which has a moving element controlled by two or more gyroscopes; sensor-based, which moves the sensor through lateral translation axes, and in the newest generation of cameras, also yaw, pitch and roll axes; and finally, electronic systems that use software-based image subtraction and have no moving parts at all. The least effective are electronic stabilizers – they are effectively useless, and worse still, leave behind odd image artifacts. Lens-based stabilizers are generally more effective than sensor-based stabilizers. This is because the moving lens element is generally at the nodal point of the lens, and only has to tilt in the opposite direction to compensate for relative camera motion; it can compensate for a greater degree of camera shake than a sensor based system, because the sensor has to move through the actual distance the image is displaced by on the focal plane; this means that sensor-shift systems get less and less effective as the focal length increases.

Rule 5: Turn off the stabilizer when using a tripod.
Stabilizers, by definition, use moving parts. The problem here is that when everything is locked down and not moving – i.e. a tripod-based scenario – the moving parts can’t stay perfectly still, unless they’re locked in place – i.e. the stabilizer is turned off. Even the systems which are claimed to be able to detect tripod mode don’t physically lock down unless turned off manually.

Rule 6: Stabilizers always cause some sort of image degradation.
This is unavoidable; to deliver optimal results, the optical formula must be precisely matched by the physical configuration of the lenses. Fine manufacturing tolerances and errors are enough to cause subpar performance; imagine what a moving element does to that mix. Conclusion: turn it off, lock it down, and use a tripod if utmost image quality is your objective.

Beware of the limitations, but also know that stabilization systems can give you a little edge when it comes to unique images – the best example I can think of is when you want static buildings but a little motion blur in the people to convey a sense of activity; throw in a longer focal length and it’s not really something you can produce without a tripod (often inconvenient, or downright disallowed). Another example is where you’re shooting wildlife with a monopod at dawn or dusk; light is marginal and you’re not using a tripod for maximum flexibility, but you need a little more latitude with shutter speed to keep the quality up. It’s situations like this where stabilizers shine. MT

Filed Under: Articles, Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: gearhead, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, stabilization, thein

Review: A controversial lens: the Nikon AFS 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR G

April 26, 2012 by Ming Thein

Image from Nikon USA.

This lens is the full-frame equivalent of the very popular 18-200/3.5-5.6 DX VR; and like the DX equivalent, it’s an optic that seems to breed two kinds of people: blind fanboys who think it’s the one and only lens you need to own, and others who think it’s a horrible compromise that does nothing well, and is best avoided.

Dayabumi. The first marble-facaded skyscraper in Kuala Lumpur. Nikon D700, 28-300VR

I picked up this lens together with the new (at the time) AFS 85/1.4 G at the latter end of 2010; I never intended to use it as a one-size fits all, but rather as as more flexible replacement for the AFS 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR – itself which was great up to about 200mm, but required much smaller apertures to be useable at 300mm, and it never got as sharp as it was at shorter focal lengths – despite stopping down.

Bottom line: the 28-300VR does the job. My sample, at least, matches the 70-300VR optically in the 70-200mm range; neither one is really great at 300mm, but I’d give a slight edge to the 28-300VR. Never mind the fact that it isn’t 300mm all the time – I’ll talk more about this later.

Honda HSV-010 detail. Super Japan GT, Sepang International Circuit. Nikon D700, 28-300VR

Let’s start with the physical stuff. It isn’t a small lens – in fact, it’s similar in size and heft to the 24-70/2.8 without the hood – but it’s made entirely of textured polycarbonate. It also extends considerably when zoomed out, which shifts the weight in the hand quite noticeably. Fortunately, the extensions are quite robust. The lens is gasketed, and I’ve shot with it in light rain; I probably wouldn’t do this under more adverse weather conditions, because the water will naturally go inside the lens as you zoom in and out – you can see evidence of this as water streaks are left behind. There’s a narrow, very short-throw focus ring with rudimentary distance scale, no DOF markings, and very little feel. Clearly, this lens wasn’t mean to be manually focused – good luck doing it precisely. In front of that is a wide rubberized zoom ring. Zoom spacing is nice and linear, though a little stiff – you can feel the plastic-on-plastic action inside the lens. The remaining controls are switches for AF/MF, VR ON/OFF, and VR ACTIVE/ NORMAL mode. There’s also a lock switch to prevent the lens extending past 28mm – clearly Nikon learned something from the self-tromboning 18-200VR, though the zoom action is actually stiff enough not to require it.

GT500 at Sepang International Circuit. Nikon D700, 28-300VR

It’s a proper AF-S lens, which means that you have full time manual override. Focusing is midrange-fast, even at the long end of the zoom. It isn’t as fast as the pro lenses, obviously. Fast enough.

The stabilizer uses Nikon’s second generation technology – denoted by the gold VR plaque, rather than red as on the first versions. It’s quite effective – with good technique, critically sharp shots at 1/15s 300mm on FX or 1/50s 450mm equivalent on DX are possible. It has automatic panning detection, and an ACTIVE mode that cancels out all subject motion – i.e. panning off. However, you should be turning the stabilizer off if your shutter speed is above the safe speed required – the time required for the stabilizer to move into position can actually create a weird double-image effect if left on at very high shutter speeds. VR is much more effective if you give it a couple of seconds to ‘lock in’ before shooting. Curiously, it also works much better if the camera is held horizontal – extreme up or down shooting tends to render it mostly ineffective.

Polo. Cue panning mode. Nikon D700, 28-300VR

Let’s talk about optics: I strongly suspect with a lens this complex, there’s some sample variation going on. And this might well be the source of the strong polarization between user camps. Mine isn’t so hot at 28mm – in fact, it’s downright crappy (flare, aberrations, lack of sharpness and contrast) at 28mm until f5.6; curiously, you can manual focus it to a sharper image – however, using that AF-fine tune calibration throws out every other focal length. From 35mm to 200mm or so, this lens is right up there with the rest of them – it’s sharp, contrasty, and has plenty of bite. It’s lacking micro contrast though, which I suspect is a consequence of having a huge number of elements and air-glass interfaces: a little bit of contrast is lost at each one, no matter how good your coating is. Above 200mm, things soften to the point that 300mm isn’t that good wide open, and requires f8 to be useable.

A swimmer’s portrait. Nikon D700, 28-300VR

That was for FX. Curiously, the lens seems a little sharper on DX (16MP D5100); this might be because it’s using only the central portion of the image, though that doesn’t explain the much improved results at the extreme ends of the range. Curiously, it works much better on the D800 than it did on the D700 – it could be my sample – in fact, it’s much the same as on the D5100 which has similar pixel density. On the 12MP FX cameras, I’d use it from 28-100 at f5.6, and 100-200 at f8 or lower. On the 36Mp D800, 28-300 at maximum aperture is useable but a little soft; improves greatly one stop down, and is actually pretty good by two stops down from maximum. There’s always vignetting, at pretty much every aperture; however it’s an easy fix in Photoshop. Weakest performance is actually at 28mm on all formats and sensors – on the high density sensors, it’s sharp but hazy; on the D700, it’s just hazy.

It seems that slightly better results may be obtained at 28mm on the D700 if live view is used, which points to an AF calibration error – however, if one calibrates for 28mm, every other point in the focal range becomes soft. I think this is very much a design or batch QC issue as all of the samples of the lens I’ve tested have exhibited the same issue.

Rear fuselage. Every rivet is sharp in the full size version, despite being shot at 28mm. Nikon D5100, 28-300VR

Sharpness is about the only optical thing that the lens has going for it. It flares in a dramatic, cinematic way; distortion is horrible and complex; (as you’d expect from an optical design that has to correct for wide-angle and telephoto aberrations) and high contrast edges exhibit lateral chromatic aberration, though not as bad as you’d expect from a lens of this complexity. Bokeh is actually neutral to good.

Aeroplanescape. Nikon D700, 28-300VR

By far the worst thing about this lens is the focal length shortening. You didn’t think you were really going to get 300mm at the near limit of 0.45m, did you? If so, that would be one hell of a macro lens. The reality is that up close, it’s probably giving you no more than 135mm, no matter what the position of the zoom ring. This is an optical trick that allows for less movement of the focusing group to deliver the same minimum focus distance. Out to infinity, the lens delivers around 290mm.

Fountain. Nikon D700, 28-300VR

Curiously, Canon also makes a 28-300mm lens – but it’s a heavy duty, L-series weather sealed push-pull zoom monster, costing at least four times as much as the Nikon. I used one briefly with a 1D Mark III, which has similar pixel density to the D700 – the Nikon is much, much better. There’s a general softness and slight edge flare to the Canon that makes images feel ill-defined. I hear a replacement is in the works, however. There’s also a Tamron version, which I can’t comment on as I haven’t used it – other than it’s f6.3 on the long end. I think though then physical aperture of the Nikon or Tamron may be f5.6 or f6.3, the T stop is much, much lower – possibly as bad as f8 or higher.

Morning mountains. Would have been better with a little more micro contrast; the original file was very, very felt indeed. Nikon D700, 28-300VR

Practically, what is this lens good for? What do I use it for? Basically, two things: it’s a Swiss army knife, for times when I know there’ll be plenty of light out, and I’m not aperture-limited; when I don’t know what I’m shooting or know that I’ll require a lot of perspectives; and finally, when I need telephoto reach. I shoot most of my work below 85mm, so this is a kind of emergency tool for when I need to go longer. It works, and having said all of the above, it is capable of delivering pretty good images – if you use it within its limitations. Just don’t try and shoot architecture in the dark hand-held with it. MT

Sky hole. Nikon D700, 28-300VR

The Nikon AFS 28-300/3.5-5.6 VR G is available here from B&H and Amazon.

____________

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: AFS 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR, gearhead, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, nikon, review, thein

The ideal camera

April 8, 2012 by Ming Thein

I’m going to disappoint you upfront: it doesn’t exist, at least not yet. But what if we did a hypothetical – yet realistic – exercise to see what a product like this would look like?

First disclaimer: I, and a group of partners, were very close to building this – but we were let down partway through by a key technology partner, and found funding challenging – despite the continuing growth of the photographic industry, especially at the advanced amateur and entry-professional segments. Alas, it never materialized. In any case, the idea has matured a bit since then, both through the benefit of time, and ideas gleaned from intervening new product releases.

Second disclaimer: This is what I would like as a photographer, and may not necessarily apply to everybody.

I’m not going to suggest a 100-megapixel, 25fps, point-and-shoot sized body with a full frame sensor, and built in 10-600/1.4 zoom. That’s stupid, and the preserve of equipment masturbators on camera forums who don’t actually use their equipment.

Right now, I use four systems: full frame Leica M digital, for photojournalism, reportage, portraiture and travel work; full frame Nikon FX for extreme low light, macro and controlled lighting work; Micro Four Thirds for personal work/ carry where photography isn’t the primary objective of the outing, and where anything larger might be obtrusive; and finally, a number of compacts for social documentary use. I’ve never been told by a client that I have insufficient resolution; and I’ve delivered images as small as 5MP before. Why? Because I’m a stickler for practicing shot discipline; that means even though I’m ‘only’ giving you 5MP, they’re 5 extremely clean MP at the pixel level, well exposed, perfectly focused, not posterized, and will print cleanly at A2. More MP – say 18 from the M9 – just means you can make larger prints before fine detail breaks down at close inspection distances. That’s all. I’ve only come up against the low light limits of the Nikon system once – and that was photographing a wedding in near darkness (only candles) in rural Nepal; but I was still able to get good quality images with ISO 12,800 and f1.4 glass. I don’t need ISO 512,000.

Let’s take the best parts of each system, and see what our bastard-camera would look like:

1. Sensor size: This is a tough one, actually. There are times when I want a smaller sensor for more DOF (think very compressed perspectives) – I will often use a compact for this. There are times I want a larger sensor for even shallower DOF for a given field of view – this is the main attraction of systems like the Leica S2. Let’s go with full frame, because we can always have a 2x crop factor (it’s easier to multiply out than 1.5x, and when you want a smaller sensor it’s generally because you need more reach or more DOF and more reach.)

2. Sensor spec: 48MP. Whoa, really? What happened to I don’t need huge MP, you’re wondering? Simple: pixel binning. 48 million photo sites – with RGB + Luminance values coming from individual photo sites, would mean amazing detail, fantastically accurate color, and low noise. Output file resolution of 12MP – but actual pixel detail of 12MP. With this technique and today’s sensor architecture, I don’t think it’d be a problem to get a clean ISO 12,800 file. And that’s enough for me. Add a Bayer algorithm mode to give a 12MP crop, and that takes care of my telephoto/ compressed perspective/ high DOF needs.

3. Speed: Doesn’t have to be fast – 5fps is plenty. I work just fine with the single-shot M9-P; most of the time bursts are for stability rather than action.

4. Video modes: I don’t use it, but I do like to experiment – so perhaps a 1080P/ variable frame rate mode would be nice, with full manual controls, of course. But no rolling shutter!

5. Autofocus: Let’s take the best there is now and match it: CAM3500FX in the Nikon D700 is eerily psychic at tracking moving subjects; however, it could use more frame coverage – expand the points to cover out to say 80% of the frame linearly, and we’re in business.

6. Firmware features: Lots of scope for customization: I don’t mind going through a lengthy setup process to ensure the camera does exactly what I want. I want to be able to hide things in menus and reassign all of my buttons, and have custom modes that set all camera behavior – including base exposure parameters – at once. And of course the ability to remember, save and transfer to another camera body.

7. Lenses: AF, fast aperture – at least f2, preferably f1.4. Useable wide open, of course. Physical aperture rings. I don’t need zooms, or extreme focal lengths; 18-24-28-35-50-85-200 and a short tele macro (maybe the 200 could double as a macro) will do me just fine. It could even be reduced to 24-50-85 in a pinch, so long as one of those was a 1:1 macro with capability to take a bellows or extension tubes.

8. Body: Robust, thick-gauge metal (tactility is important) and weather sealed; plenty of sensible physical controls; an optical viewfinder or excellent EVF – I think the new Sony OLED unit in the NEX-7 or 5N is about the minimum. But I much prefer the enormous, bright finder of say the Leica S2. I think M9-size is about perfect; big enough to have some heft and solidity, sufficient space to house all of those controls, and (yes, I’m shallow – or at least some clients are) impressively professional-looking. That would have to have an EVF to maintain the body thinness and accurate framing. If it’s an optical finder, we could probably make it small-SLR size – I don’t see why a full frame sensor won’t fit inside a D7000-sized body; the flange distance is FX-sized, and there were film SLRs of similar dimensions. Ergonomic comfort is very, very important – especially if you’re going to use it for 12 hours a day (or sometimes even more). Plenty of sticky rubber and thumb/ finger hooks, please. Buttons big enough to use with gloves, and wheels/ switches that don’t move unless you want them to – think locking buttons or very stiff detents.

9. Other considerations: File format: Compressed 16-bit DNG. It’s future proof, past-proof, and easy to handle and archive. Don’t bother with JPEG because I don’t use it. Live view would be nice, but not critical; it can be useful for awkward angles but is greatly enhanced by a swivel screen (which frankly I hate because they’re flimsy and compromise body integrity). A vertical grip is nice, but not necessary. What is necessary is a high magnification, high-eyepoint (I, and a lot of other photographers, are poorly sighted thanks to plenty of shooting into bright point light sources and so need to wear glasses) and with a nice big rubber eyecup. A high-resolution, color-accurate LCD is important for review. Most important is operating speed – menus and such – the camera should never feel laggy. This is the #1 reason why I’ve given up on a piece of equipment in the past.

Okay, so who’s going to make me one of these things? MT

Filed Under: Articles, Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: blog.mingthein.com, gearhead, ideal camera, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, opinion, thein

Review: The Leica X1

March 30, 2012 by Ming Thein

Why write about this camera now? The X1 may not be a new camera by any means, but curiously I think if anything it has become relevant again, now that large sensor compacts are all the rage (I can only hope for a digital full frame Ricoh GR1v or Olympus Mju II). I owned one of these for the second half of 2010 and into early 2011, before swapping it for the much-vaunted (and somewhat disappointing) Fuji X100 – to be the subject of another review.

What is interesting is that X1s are popping up used here and there at quite reasonable prices – though like most Leicas, they seem to resist extreme depreciation quite well. At the time, I couldn’t resist, and I was getting impatient waiting for the X100, so I traded in my Sony NEX-5 and bit the bullet.

A little background: early attempts at mirrorless cameras seemed like a great idea to me – but also somewhat half-baked; here was a camera large enough to be inconvenient, but not large enough to do the job properly. And slow enough to make you want to tear your hair out. But yes, the image quality was definitely better than a small sensor compact. So I persevered. Early micro four thirds attempts weren’t just terrible, they were utterly dire. The Olympus E-P1 was so slow as to be unusable. And the control layout from the Panasonic G1 somehow just didn’t work well – despite being just fine on the LX3. Hmmm. The Sony NEX-5 was next; decently fast, getting smaller, but oh boy the interface was utterly horrible. And none of them had a good EVF, let alone a nice optical finder. Like every other equipment fanboy, the X100 seemed to be the perfect fix – EVF, OVF, manual controls, nice fast lens.

But the X1 got in the way.

Hood reflections. Leica X1

First impressions: whoa, it’s light. There really isn’t that much inside the camera – although it’s metal, it gives the impression of being hollow rather than solidly packed like the Ms. It’s also nice and simple: the limited menu from the M8/9 made it over, keeping the important things and not adding anything superfluous. Shutter speed and aperture control dials are nicely obvious and pleasantly tactile, although they could perhaps be a bit stiffer to prevent accidental knocking. I’d ask for a lock button, but that isn’t part of the Leica gestalt. In fact, it looks and feels like nothing so much as a Barnack camera – especially if you put a compact finder on top. I like the Ricoh GV-2 28mm bright line – yes, it’s a 36mm equivalent lens, but if you use the insides of the 28mm bright line, it actually provides more accurate framing than a dedicated 35/36mm finder, which tends to be a bit too conservative for my liking. (I’m one of those people who composes their shots with the outside of their M’s frame lines.)

KLPAC. Leica X1

So, a digital Barnack – that’s a good thing, right? Well, yes and no. Let’s get the bad out of the way first: it’s slow; not in the control/ UI interface, but AF and MF were positively glacial. MF required too many turns of the little wheel to use accurately for zone focus; AF was just slow, period – even with the fastest ‘single point HI’ setting chosen. And it doesn’t focus closer than 30cm, though at times it seems even that’s a little generous. A firmware update improved things somewhat, but still doesn’t bring this camera into ‘this feels fast’ territory. I’m faster with an M9. And let’s not even talk about the Olympus Pen Mini. While I’m griping, I want to bring up two more issues: the battery life is abysmal – I mean I can exhaust a battery in an hour or two of shooting. Perhaps 300 frames and it’s flashing at me. Finally, in low light, the LCD doesn’t gain up enough; maybe it can’t without being grainy and unusable. It also doesn’t have enough pixels to manual focus easily. There are a few other niggles too – like peeling leatherette, which I was told is a tropical climate + glue compatibility issue and has been fixed on newer cameras; the flash sometimes not popping up…a bigger buffer would be nice, too.

Corporate sponsored roaring 40s party. Leica X1

With that done, let’s talk about the good things.

1. The sensor’s image quality is really excellent. For a 12MP camera using a last generation sensor. I understand it’s a derivative of the Sony sensor used in the Nikon D90, which was excellent but very much a first generation product for large sensor live view and video, and certainly without a fast enough refresh rate to be used for contrast detect autofocus – which is what the X1 does. ISO 3200 is definitely useable, and produces crisp results – with compromised dynamic range, of course; but the grain is nice and random, and mostly in the luminance channels. The tonal response of the sensor makes it excel at black and white work, even at higher ISOs. I believe the X1 also has a very weak (or possibly no) AA filter – and it shows.

Shadow of the photographer. Leica X1

2. The lens’ image quality is also excellent. I was told that the optics are identical to the discontinued but highly regarded 24/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH – except in a collapsible, autofocus version with an extended helicoid to allow focusing to 30cm instead of 70cm. It’s sharp corner to corner, and at every aperture. The lens clearly out resolves the sensor – aperture control is for depth of field control only, not improving optical performance. Microcontrast structure, flare resistance and chromatic aberration performance are all exemplary. Moreso when you remember that the lens is collapsible, with all of the various small potential alignment errors introduced by moving tubes and the like.

Redhead. Leica X1

3. The camera seemingly never fails to focus. Wait a minute, didn’t I say before that AF was terrible? I said slow: not inaccurate. It might take several seconds, but the camera will find focus. And that will be on the money. It doesn’t seem to get confused by point light sources, unlike most other compact system cameras I’ve used.

The mysterious oval in the mountains. Very, very low contrast – but no focusing problems. Leica X1

4. Flash sync speed is…1/2000s! Really? Yes, really. Say thank you to the leaf shutter. That means you can do a lot of creative work with it because you can sync at outdoor daylight speeds, as well as freeze motion very well. Oh, and there’s that handy built in flash: it’s quite useless for social work and as a primary, but as an optical slave trigger when manually set to minimum power, it’s great. One other benefit of the leaf shutter is that it’s an incredibly low-vibration camera – the release is just a smooth, quiet ‘snick’. I wish the Ms had a shutter like this – and the nice-feeling shutter button to go with it.

Hair flick. Leica X1, 1/2000s, Nikon SB900s in umbrellas.

Does it deliver the ‘Leica look’? Yes and no. These days, with enough processing, you can make a image shot from any camera look like it was shot using another one; however, there are some subtle differences like tonal accuracy and dynamic range that you can’t easily fake. The X1 feels to me like a half-Leica: the sensor is a CMOS, which by definition will have a very different – much more linear in the shadows and highlights – tonal response to a CCD, which is what is used in the M8/M9/S2 (and responds much more similarly to film, i.e. non-linearly). However, the lens definitely imparts some Leica DNA; you can see it in the way the images ‘pop’, but the color and palette might not be quite what you expect – that’s the sensor.

Looking down. Leica X1

The bottom line is that this camera delivers what it’s supposed to: image quality. Ease of use is there, but speed could be seriously improved. And I’d like to see either a short zoom version (a 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar style lens arrangement could be interesting too) or a telephoto – say an 85/2 – which would be great for studio work.

More building color. Leica X1. I actually really liked this camera for architectural work; more than my Ms because of the precise framing afforded by the LCD. Wider would be nice, though.

I’m still trying to figure out who this camera is aimed at, though: it’s not automatic enough for a novice-who-wants-a-Leica to use and appreciate without feeling frustrated; you do need to know something about photography to get the most out of it by working around its limitations. (Hint: pre focusing is your friend). I think it’d make a good backup camera for an M user – if they sorted out manual focus; the wheel should be a bit more responsive, and it needs virtual DOF scales, I think – or an upgrade camera for a D-Lux 5 owner; but they might still want to keep the D-Lux around for the added focal length flexibility. It might also make the perfect weekend toy for the jaded SLR owner who wants to try something different.

Ferrari 430. Leica X1

One final word: as with all of the large sensor compacts I’ve used so far, don’t expect to shoot it the same way you shoot your SLR – it’s not designed for that. Instead, think of it more as an introduction to M-style photography – slower, more contemplative and more anticipative – and I believe the results will come. MT

Lamborghini Gallardo. Leica X1

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews, Leica Tagged With: gearhead, leica, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, review, thein, x1

More D800 autofocus observations

March 27, 2012 by Ming Thein

After a couple more days of testing, I’ve got more observations on the D800’s autofocus system:

1. I think we’re reaching the limits of accuracy for CAM3500FX, and in fact, any phase detect based AF system. There are just too many parts that have to be precisely perpendicular and in exact alignment to achieve focus accuracy – the AF sub mirror assembly, the AF sensor itself, and the main imaging sensor. If any of these is out of plane by a few microns, then you’re going to see some softness. We’re now getting enough resolution that the planarity of the lens mount relative to the sensor becomes an issue – to say nothing of perfect alignment of optical elements. I believe there was an article posted a while back on the Luminous Landscape about shimming a sensor and how much resolution improved by both on-center and especially in the corners of the frame.

2. Future AF systems will have to be hybrid – i.e. use some form of contrast detect or phase detect embedded into the imaging sensor in order to work around these limitations. It doesn’t however solve the problem of mount planarity or lens element alignment.

3. There are some things you can do as a photographer to counter these limitations, chief of which is use live view for critical focusing, or stop down – or better yet, both. Live view eliminates problems of AF sensor/ sub mirror alignment. Stopping down covers slight sensor misalignment with depth of field.

4. AF fine tune is an absolute must to get the most out of the AF system.

5. Bad news for manual focus fans. I did my mirror alignment and calibration this morning – it was almost perfect from factory, which is a first; however, my joy died after removing the focusing screen. The focusing screen in the D800 is a different size to anything Nikon has yet produced. Worse still, it’s the largest one I’ve ever seen, so you can’t even cut something down to fit – it’ll just drop out. This is a real shame; I can only hope a third party produces replacement screens for MF aficionados.

6. Finally, lenses you thought were fantastic on the previous 12MP FX cameras may now only be mediocre or average on the D800 – you have been warned. MT

Filed Under: Gearhead: Reviews Tagged With: autofocus, blog.mingthein.com, d800, gearhead, ming, ming thein, mingthein.com, nikon d800, nikon d800 review, observations, review, thein

A very long term (and final) review: The Nikon D700

March 25, 2012 by Ming Thein

Bear with me here. The Nikon D700 may be a 2008 camera, (ouch, that’s four years old? Why is he reviewing it now?) and even worse, I received it’s successor – the D800 – on 22 March. (My initial review is up, here) It’s now time to close the book on the D700 – its days as my primary workhorse are just about over; I shot my final assignment with it earlier this week. And that’s the reason why I’m reviewing it – I think I’m now qualified to pass an opinion.

Nikon’s pricing has left a gap in its FX lineup – there’s the D7000 at approximately RM3,000/US$1000; the D300s (though hardly ever bought, and arguably bettered by the D7000 in almost every way) at RM4,500/US$1500 or thereabouts; then we’re into FX territory with the D700 at RM6,300/US$2100 and the D800 at US$3000. Notice how the pricing steps up in nice increments: $500-600 gets you appreciably more camera in every increment – well, perhaps with the exception of the D300s, which is to be replaced soon.

Kuala Lumpur dawn. Nikon D700, 28-300VR

The D700 was left in the lineup for two reasons: to clear remaining stock, and to provide an entry level option for FX upgraders. And guess what: according to every dealer I’ve spoken to, it’s still selling just as well as the day it was launched. So why does everybody think it’s obsolete? Clearly, because the successor was launched. Hell, even I’m buying one – but only because my D700 has been shot to death and is on the way out; it doesn’t make sense for me to buy another D700 when I could pay a little bit more, and offer more resolution to the clients that require it.

Alfabeti. Nikon D700, 60/2.8 G Micro

To me, the D700 was a landmark camera: the same amazing low light performance as the flagship D3, no compromises in AF or features – anywhere – at a price that was affordable to the majority of serious amateurs, whilst being robust enough to deal with professional abuse. I had two of them at one point. It was the first camera – aside from the D3 – that I felt turned me, the photographer into the limitation, rather than the camera or the lenses. If you could see it well enough to compose, you could get a useable image. If you could aim the camera fast enough, it would focus. And it would track subjects with unerring accuracy.

LED array. Nikon D700, 60/2.8 G Micro

And from a user’s point of view, that’s the all important question answered: yes, it’s good enough. The image quality is beyond reproach; you get 12 extremely clean, high-durability (more on that later) megapixels – which if used properly, is sufficient for any use. The resolution represents a sweet spot between diffraction limits – f27 is about where it starts to kick in – and depth of field. The large photo sites mean that you have a very high signal-to-noise ratio – coupled with high color accuracy and good dynamic range (that’s what I mean about high-durability pixels). In fact, exposed and processed with care, you can get around 13 useable stops out of the camera – which is right up against the limit of its 14 bit raw files. This does require judicious use of the highlight recover slider in ACR and a little deliberate overexposure (a stop is quite doable) – so you have to plan for it at the time of shooting. In any case, any more dynamic range looks unnatural and flat – remember, screens at best can only display 8 bits of tonal range, and even less for print.

Seiko ‘Fifty Three Fathoms’. Nikon D700, 60/2.8 G Micro

Much has been made of the high ISO capabilities of the D3 around the time of its launch; the same holds true for the D700. It isn’t a camera that’s particularly sensitive to color temperature with regards to noise (for example, the D2H and D200 of the previous generation were, due to IR and blue-channel sensitivity issues). Properly exposed, ISO 6400 is clean, and ISO 12800 is useable. To be honest, if you need any higher ISOs than that and you’re shooting wide open with f1.4 lenses, you probably won’t even be able to see the subject well enough to compose.

Thaipusam. Nikon D700, 85/1.4 G

Bottom line: image quality remains on par with the best of the DX cameras, even the new 16MP and 24MP ones. The latter may resolve slightly more at base ISO, but they lose out on dynamic range, edge integrity, and anytime you need to exceed ISO 800. Color accuracy is always slightly better, in my opinion. It remains to be seen if the D800 has the same pixel integrity as the D700, given the benefit of four years of development. I’m not expecting miracles due to its pixel density, however.

BMW 320d M Sport. Nikon D700, 28-300VR

Image quality is the largest factor in the success of a camera as a tool, but usability is right up there, too. Suffice to say that Nikon has been doing this for a long time, and it shows. The ergonomics of this camera are very comfortable, even for extended use, and with larger lenses. In my mind, it balances best with something large-medium – around the size of the 85/1.4, for instance. Larger is a bit front heavy, but still comfortable. If you need more weight, or speed, there’s of course the MB-D10 battery pack – with the right batteries, 8fps is possible. (Curiously, 8fps is also possible without the battery pack if you select flash bracketing, single-shot mode, and hold down the function button to select a 9-frame burst.)

Teatime. Nikon D700, Zeiss ZF.2 2/28 Distagon

There are a lot of nice little touches here:
– The metering mode switch is still my favorite of any camera; it’s easy to flip to spot when required, though that’s seldom because the 1005 pixel RGB meter is usually spot on. One doesn’t actually appreciate just how accurate this meter is until you use something else.
– Viewfinder blind and eyepiece lock
– The built in flash. Many people question why you’d want to have this on a professional camera, but clearly those people never work with speed lights – I do all the time, and it’s invaluable to use as a remote commander.
– My Menu.
– The ability to use the multi-selector center button to instantly zoom playback images – to check for sharpness – then toggle between the same magnified point on successive images with the command dial.
– Tethered port caps, finally. Too easy to lose the little screw in plugs on the last generation, and much too expensive to replace.
– The battery grip communicates via a series of small contacts on the base of the camera, and doesn’t require you to remove the original battery and battery door: it’s functional with them still in, and much easier to store and put on/ take off.
– Weather sealing – though I wouldn’t complain if it were fully gasketed like the single-digit cameras, it can still survive a pretty serious downpour unprotected.
– Programmable buttons. Give us more, please.
– DX crop mode – useful when you need more reach in a pinch, but will be better if there was more resolution to support it.
– AF fine tune – very, very important with fast lenses.
– Rangefinder with arrows to tell you which direction to turn the lens in; helpful for manual lenses.
– The LCD is actually good enough for you to be able to judge critical sharpness, and with experience, exposure and color.

Bride leaving. Nikon D700, 24/1.4

But there are also things that need fixing, some of which were addressed with the D800:
– Live view is far too complicated to access – rotate drive mode dial, hit shutter. Should just be a button. (fixed)
– AUTO should be an option on the ISO selection button. (fixed)
– It’s difficult to see the entire finder with eyeglasses – really needs a higher eye point.
– DX crop mode – the masking is far from obvious.
– The focus points could be spread out more; often I still have to shift and recompose even using the extreme points. Curiously, the camera can still track subjects even if they move outside the AF points – it uses the color of the subject and the metering CCD to do this.

Girard-Perregaux F1-047. Nikon D700, 60/2.8 G Micro

Let’s talk a bit about AF. Simply, it works. I use either single point mode, with 11 selectable points – when shooting static subjects, and then switch to 3D-tracking with 51 points on the back toggle switch when shooting action or photojournalism. Once you lock on to your subject with the center point, you can recompose and the camera will automatically track. With fast lenses, AF-C is imperative because of field curvature and small movements in either camera or subject – either situation will rob critical sharpness. AF obviously works better when shooting at 5fps because there’s more information reaching the AF sensor, so it’s easier for the camera to predict where your subject is going to go; it’s still good at 8fps, though. Same underlying 51-point CAM3500FX module as the D3-series.

Chopard LUC. Nikon D700, 60/2.8 G Micro

Battery life is excellent. A standard EN-EL3e cell will last me a day; easily a thousand shots or more, with moderate LCD use. With the grip and EN-EL4a cell from the D3 series, you’re looking at easily 5000 or more frames – more than enough for a day of use for even the most prolific photographers. And you can still keep your EN-EL3e in the camera if you’re worried about running out of juice. Simply put, this is the longest-lasting camera that Nikon makes, period.

Nikon D700, 16-35/4 VR

This is actually a very different review to the one I wrote in CLICK! magazine shortly after the release of the camera; I was shooting with a D3 at the time, and didn’t feel that impressed by the camera. But I think I was missing the point: the fact that I wasn’t really missing anything, either, should have been more impressive: flagship performance for almost half the price.

GUB Marine Chronometer movement. Nikon D700, 60/2.8 G Micro

Four years later, I’ve shot nearly a hundred thousand frames between two D700s; both have performed nearly flawlessly. My primary body is throwing the occasional black frame, which suggests a sticky shutter issue. I’m loath to send it in for replacement because my camera is also quite heavily modified, which I’m afraid Nikon will undo if it appears at their workshops. At one point, I was shooting all Zeiss manual focus glass; I discovered the hard way that the viewfinder wasn’t really up to the task of focusing accurately with very fast lenses. My finder has a new screen – a Type J bright matte with micro prisms and split-prism from the F6; it doesn’t fit natively so it had to be filed down. The screen has been perfectly shimmed to be planar and perpendicular with the sensor, and the mirror zero return position and alignment adjusted for the same. Basically, as close to perfect WSYWIG as possible. I’ll probably have to go through the same process again with the D800, but I doubt I’ll bother with the focusing screen as I prefer the Nikon AFS f1.4 lenses these days.

Temple on Hoan Kiem Lake, Hanoi. Nikon D700, 28-300VR

It’s time to answer the inevitable question of D700 vs D800: it’s not as clear cut as you might think. Yes, the D800 offers higher resolution and video but at the expense of per-pixel noise and demands on lenses and technique; in that sense it’s a much less forgiving camera. You’re also giving up the potential of full resolution shooting at 8fps. Ergonomically, both are good; the D800 takes a slight edge due to refined controls, however I personally find the D700 grip more comfortable. The D700 is more of a general, do-anything, go-anywhere camera, but the D800 is a specialist tool that can produce amazing results – under the right conditions.

Although both are clearly interchangeable from a function point of view, if we examine the strengths of each camera, I think the balance splits as follows.
D700 if you:
– Do not make prints beyond 2×3 ft, or use images for digital purposes only
– Shoot a lot of sport or other things that require high frame rates
– Aren’t willing to invest in the best glass or technique

D800 if you:
– Need the resolution for large prints
– Need the increased dynamic range
– Need video capability

In the meantime, my D700 goes into retirement as my backup/ high-speed body. I think I know what kind of beast it is now: the Goldilocks camera: not too big, not too small, just right, and incredibly versatile.

The giant lightbulb illuminates. Nikon D700, 24/1.4