Personal: Trekking in Mercantour.

After having been raised in the French Alps and living in Ireland for 5 years, being now in Paris is somewhat against my nature. Feels like being trapped in a concrete prison and I really miss wildlife. So on my free time, I go trekking in the Alps. Of course I take a camera, in that case a D600 Nikon with a 35mm f2 full frame lens. This usually leads to very interesting light, and different subjects than young female models.

Since my better half will now be going from hospital to rehabilitation center for the next 3 months (ACL Gone Wild, I have the video of the accident, not cool). We decided to make the most of her last days of mobility. Surprising what you can do without knee ligaments, providing that you have the right custom brace.

Anyway, we went to Mercantour in the southern Alps. We used the lac d'Allos and its refuge as a (very comfy) "base camp". Sleeping the in wild of course (otherwise it doesn't count) and carrying your home on your back (otherwise it doesn't count). Here are my good shots from the trip. 

PS: I am starting to have sensor cleanliness issues on the D600, even without ever changing the lens. The sensor cleaning function gets rid of it for few ours only, it's a pain. I'll contact Nikon and see how they deal with it.

That is me, I don't reckon there are many pictures of your host on this site.

Which one of you ladies will be my girlfriend tonight...

In between weather leads to great light.

Few from the refuge terrasse at lac d'Allos, 2250m

Last one, not a good picture but an amusing story. We are sleeping in the wild, it's rainy and windy outside so the tent make a lot of noise. However, I got the feeling something is moving next to me, rubbing against the tent. I first blame it on the wind, it's dark, I'm sleepy...screw it, don't care. But then it becomes more obvious. First reflex: wolf? Not so close to the 2 shepard dogs that are 100m away with a herd. And we have no more meat in the bags. Marmotte maybe (some sort of mountain gopher fluffy-fat animal) ...they are curious indeed. Not a sheep, it would make more noise. 

Anyway I give up guessing and fall asleep again. The next day, my 10kg (20 pounds) bag has been pulled out of the tent from under the top layer, definitely not a marmotte ! We find what's left of our fruit stash 10 meters away (see picture). When we later had a chat with the shepard (some really really vintage dude, wonder if he ever got down in a village in the past 30 years) and the refuge owner, they told us that a fox (they do love fruits) roams around and steal food at night. I love wildlife :) Next time I'll put the camera on time lapse with a tripod near the tent !

Amsterdam

A first attempt at architecture / cityscapes based on solid stuff (as opposed to people)

Hands on Review: Nikon D600

Finally decided to update my digital gear, still a Nikon D80...

You know how much I prefer shooting medium format film, but let's put it this way: it seems that in photography the greater the image quality the more of a pain the camera is to use.
I still haven't seen anything that equals a Mamiya RZ67, Pentax 67 or Mamiya 7, but those all have one thing in common: they are either huge & heavy or very hard & slow to set up. Jokes on me liking the RZ67 because it's big and hard would be of course totally immature, so let's not make them.

Since I'm going to travel a lot, backpacking and shooting documentary style, I need portable convenient equipment. I also need something that can handle all travel conditions. Not to mention that making full HD broadcast quality video is simply awesome to capture the mood of a place when traveling. 

I will test the Nikon D600 with 2 prime AF lenses and 1 AIS manual lens:

• Nikon 35mm f/2D 
• Nikon 85mm f/1.8D
• Nikon 50mm f/1.2 AI-S Manual Focus

If you've read my previous tests, you know I'm not about counting pixels: I care about usability & ergonomics, and most of all image feel. You can read other reviews if you're about feature and spec sheets. I find it mostly irrelevant for photography and mostly a marketing thing.

This being said, I'm starting this review with some questions and expectations:

1/ Will I not be too disappointed by the image feel compared to my film medium format systems? 


You should wonder: "why getting a DSLR system when you have film 67 equipment?" Once again it's all about usage. Traveling to some remote place, need an all in one piece that can shoot in horrible conditions?  Well let me tell you straight ahead, the Nikon D600 is one hell of a toy for this.

• It's barely bigger than my old D80
• It's faster than a D800 for shooting action (5fps)
• Low light performance (with a documentary kind of use in mind) is excellent
• Video quality is as good as it gets on that type of machine (providing that you can focus manually). 
• it's weatherproofed

This being said, it can't compare to the image feel of a medium format system. No camera with a sensor this small (yes, so called full frame are still very small sensor in the world of photography) can give you that special feel.
I however can't hide how happy I am to shoot HDR in high contrast streets, shoot instinctively when film forces me to over think what I do, or be able to shoot inside an apartment without flash or a tripod !
Yes, even I, Ronan the Film Fanatic, admits that digital has its virtues.

2/ What can I really write here that's going to add value for you, the reader, knowing that essentially every recent FX DSLR is likely to produce images of similar quality? (Canon or Nikon, yes fanboys)

In terms of image, feel I honestly don't see much difference with a 5D / D800 / D4. Dynamic range is superior on Nikon at ISO 100-800 but once again, nothing significant to the human eye.
So where is the Nikon D600 striking hard, why is it to me the most attractive SLR package on the market?

• Image quality is the same as a D4 (image wise & in normal to difficult conditions), and a little superior to a Canon 5D MKIII in normal light conditions, thanks to better metering. However, you need to be a pixel maniac to notice. Indeed Nikon has a much better dynamic range and sensor- according to guys who look at pictures in labs - but this is not the most important: with the D600 all of it for much much cheaper. 
• How about the D800? It cost about 1000$ or € more than the Nikon D600. It is much better? No it isn't. I believe the main advantage of the D800 is pixels. The pixels are for advertisers, not photographers. If you need 36mp, well then you do, but don't believe one second that it get you medium format quality. Those who wrote that should be banned from writing about cameras.
• Is the Nikon D600 much better that the D800 in high ISO thanks to larger pixels? Honestly, nothing that strikes the eye. I actually believe it isn't better. D800 images once brought to the same size are ultra clean. 
• For video, D800 and Nikon D600 are the same: AF is too slow, but image quality is sweet. I'm not a videographer so I won't give much advice here.

I know what you think "he bought one so f*** his objectivity". No it's actually the other way around: I've had a go at a D800, I gave it away. I could send this one back if I wanted. No, really, I tried them all, I picked that.

If I had unlimited resources, given my type of photography, my only DSLR would still be a Nikon D600. For mind blowing digital quality I'd get a Phase One medium format camera or my RZ67.

D4's are for journalists, D800 for advertisers or digital artists who edit a lot and print large. If this is what you want, you know what to do.

So let's get into the things I liked / disliked for the time being, then photo samples !

3 / What I liked

• light weight
• ISO performance (although they all kinda compare ok in this product category)
• metering is terrific
• weatherproofed
• dynamic range for digital is great (still doesn't beat Velvia 50)
• the U1 & U2 user settings (you can program 2 modes)
• ergonomics (really the manual is not necessary)
• 95% the same as the D800 costing much more
• 24MP is plenty enough, my memory cards and computers like it
• HDR works brilliantly, very natural results
• using dual SD cards (yeaaah no need to buy CF cards)

4/ What I disliked

• Nikon still doing those straps that say "FX D600", in other words "steal it from me"
• 24MP is not that much according to todays standards. I wouldn't crop too much like on a D800.
• with my AIS lens, it doesn't read the aperture right (it reads f0 at 1.2, and f1 at F2 etc.), but the exposure remains correct
• AF in video is much too slow. Manual focus only in my opinion. It is not faster on the D800.
• because it's small, handling for me (tall guy, large hands) is not optimal. I wish it would be a little taller.
• those new DSLR make your cheap lenses look even cheaper.

CONCLUSION

I use cameras for 2 things: portraits, and travel photography. For portraits, don't fool yourself: it's a great toy with tons of electronics, but it is pathetic compared to a 67 film system. So is every digital 35mm camera.

For travel or multi purpose photography,  the Nikon D600 is about the best thing around at the moment: light, solid, weatherproofed, great low light perf, HDR mode, HD video that allows TV quality documentary making, a reasonable price.

I'm however asking myself if some of those premium mirrorless ultra compact cameras are not going to be just as good within the next 18 months...

A camera is never just good or bad. It's good or bad for a given type of use. As a multipurpose system,  the Nikon Nikon D600 is amazing. 

- What if you have a DX SLR (D80, D90, D7000) from Nikon:

It's worth it for D80 and D90 owners, totally worth it. For D7000 owners...probably not. If you can resell yours ok, but at full expense, you can keep your D7000 in my opinion.

- What if you have a D700:

The D700 is beautiful camera, if you don't need super large prints and don't care about videos, I honestly don't see why you should get a Nikon D600. It won't show on your pictures. If you care about those things, you know what to do.

- What if you only have cheap lenses:
Avoid, or buy better ones along with it. It exacerbate the lens' weaknesses. 

SAMPLE IMAGES

In really poor conditions, high contrast, low light. There won't be any nice image here, it has nothing to do with the camera anyway (1/you  2/the lens). This is aiming at showing how it renders in more extreme conditions with processing.

I essentially went for groceries at 7-8pm in October in Paris. However it is perfeclty representative of the light conditions you face when arriving in a Indian village early evening: light is crap, but you still want to capture the moment. I also went to a museum at night, then shot on a sunny day with super agressive direct sun light and shadows.

With the Nikon D600, I could shoot, period. Ok it will never get you the rendering of shooting in superb light conditions, but it appears terrific for documentaries ! I could have take none of those shot with my D80.

Yes a D800 and 5D can do it too but as we said before, this can do it while being smaller and cheaper.

Verdict:

• the meter is very impressive !
• up to 3200 it is very clean, at 6400 it's still good for A4 printing with a little noise reduction
• dynamic range stays very decent up to high ISO (excellent from 50-800)

All images are JPEG "Fine" with the highest resolution and lowest compression the camera offers. No noise removal of sharpening, no editing. Click on them to open large then zoom.

I'll add more samples taken in actual shooting situation later.

85mm F2 ISO 3200

85 mm F5.6 ISO 6400, no NR fine jpeg

100% crop

85mm f1.8 ISO 6400, actually light condition was at 8pm in winter in a street with lights only. In other words, it was dark as hell + lens pushed to the max and getting softer.

85mm F2 ISO 3200, some underexposure here but very natural rendering.

85mm F1.8 ISO 3200, spot metering on the bikes.

35mm ISO 800 spot metering on the face

35mm ISO 6400 in "low key mode": to avoid over exposure and reproduce darker moods

with and without HDR

with and without HDR

35mm @ F2 ISO 400, b&w made in element 6

50mm at f2, iso 400

What lenses should you buy with your D800 ?

A lot of D800 talks lately (guiltyyyy !), but let's not forget what's actually the second most important thing after your photographic skills: the lens. Indeed the D800 is a facilitating tool but it's still just an intermediary between you and the final image. Among all those intermediaries (lens, camera, editing software), the body is definitively the one that has the least impact on the image.

So what lens should you buy for your D800? The answer always lays in a good need assessment, and since I can't cover every possible combination of need, I'll stick to a multipurpose lens selection that should allow you to cover landscape, street photography, wedding, portrait and macro. For more eccentric needs (underwater fish eye, super tele zoom), I am not the best person to ask for advice anyway.

What applies to nearly every situation is that prime of fix focal lengths outperform zoom lengths. They do because they are optimized for one focal length only, you then benefit from sharper image, with less distortion and vignetting. They also tend to cost less. Last but not least, they can open much much wider (down't to F1.2), allowing low light photography and really narrow depth of field. Most prime lenses happen to also be FX lenses. Those usually don't have a built in motor for AF, and work only in manual focus mode in DX cameras. So when you buy a prime lens for a DX camera, make sure it's either a DX, or be aware that you won't have AF. That fact is that anyway, you need at least one prime lens. 

Of course, some situations require the capacity to zoom in and out, for example if you are a wedding photographer, or a journalist. In that case, you'll have to invest in a zoom lens. The problem is that good zoom lenses are costly. You want, on a FX camera, premium quality (otherwise why spending that much in the body). It usually means fix aperture at F2.8. Also, the greater the zoom range, the higher the risk of quality drop. You will usually buy the one you need most and invest on more latter.

1st case scenario: you had a DSLR before, DX format.

First of all, you might wonder what is different in a DX lens as opposed to a normal full format lens. Well essentially they aim at covering a smaller sensor. So if you put them on a FX, you might suffer from dark corners and excessive vignetting. Also, on a DX camera, you have to multiply the focal length by about 1.5 to know what real length your are shooting at. Because the sensor is smaller, it covers only a center portion of the image, acting as a fake 1.5 zoom. You can use your DX on an FX camera, but I recommend you then shoot it in DX mode to get the most of it. Then of course, you totally loose the purpose of having a DX camera. Finally, DX lenses tend to come in super short focal lengths, to compensate the above mentioned crop factor and allow wide angle. 

Back to your situation: if you had a DX camera, it's very unlikely that you own a premium zoom FX lens. That's the first thing you need to get since your actual zoom lenses will strongly limit the potential of your new system.

2nd case scenario: you are starting from scratch.
You must buy a great prime lens. I would go for the following combo: Nikon 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor AI-S Manual Focus + Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G AFS. This being said, here is my FX lenses Nikon selection.

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G AFS

Yes it costs an arm. But if you must have one multipurpose lens on a Nikon FX, that should be this one.  Prefer it to the 18-55 f2.8. Similar quality, 15 more mm. It's clearly aiming at professional use, but if you can afford it...

Nikon 16-35mm F4

For landscape shooters, architecture, doesn't get sharper than that on a zoom. I would even recommend this over extra wide prime lenses. Prime lenses will mostly allow low light photography, but for landscape you are likely to use a pod anyway.

Now you'll need a prime lens or two, in order to maximize your options and make the most of that large sensor. It's a lot of lenses, but you'll keep those for decades, so don't be scared investing on it.

Nikon 35mm f/2D

Ideal for street photography and travel, my kinda stuff. It's wide enough to capture a scene, allow portraiture too. I own few 35mm lenses (I shoot mostly medium format) but this is one of them. It's very affordable, small and light. It also perform really well, and remains sharp at F2, much more than the cheap (yet good) 50mm f1.8D. You. Must. Get. One.

Nikon 135mm f/2.0D
I need one (and I accept donations ! Email me or leave a comment). The portrait lens you must get, also a bokeh monster.

Nikon 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor AI-S Manual Focus
Not the cheapest, an older design too and manual focus only, but oh my god it is beautiful. It does not get sharper. Period. Bokeh is superb, at f1.2 it like a painting in the background. At F2 it is sharper than your sharper most expensive zoom. I own one, it's built old school, like a Rolex, I love it.

Nikon 105mm f/2.8G Micro
For macro. Don't get 60mm lenses for macro, this is the one you need. As the huge advantage of also being a substitute for the 135mm f2. Solid metal build, one the best Nikon lenses ever.

Last point on competition: 
Some pro Nikon camera have very brutal and fast AF motors. If you use cheap Sigma stuff with it, you might destroy the lens as it won't be handle the camera body (if you had a cheap lens on a F5, you know what I'm talking about).

Sigma and Tamron are just not cheap enough to be worth it. I don't see the point, if you can spend that much money, buy Nikon.

Zeiss and Voighlander do great stuff to, mostly prime manual focus lenses. They are excellent, but I find the 50mm f1.2 AIS so good that I don't see the point.