YAAAHHH FINALLY !!!!!

Sony made it ! I expected it from Fuji or Nikon, but Sony made it ! A FULL FRAME COMPACT WITH CARL ZEISS LENSES !!!!

This is why I passed on my D800 pre order and any other digital gear for 6 years now: now way I'm spending 3 grands on digital that is not small, and no way it's not at least true 35mm. At last, Sony does it with a 24MP sensor and a 2800$ price tag (a D800 more or less). It also comes with a 35mm F2 Zeiss lens (essentially same quality as Leica but cheaper).

Sony claims the shutter is very discrete, it can reach ISO 24000 so I'm guessing ISO 6400 should be very clean too.

Extra optical viewfinder at 450$ is a bit pricey but what the hell. If it focuses fast (unlike Fuji overpriced compacts), it's a really hot product for the traveler.

One thing though, you can't change the lens... Will I get one? It'd always good to wait for competition, but I'll greatly consider it.

Sony Alpha57 new DSLR body

In a world dominated by Canon and Nikon, should you or should you not consider a Sony camera body? Two things need to be taken in consideration:

• the choice of lenses that can be used with it
• the quality of the body itself

I'll discuss those below, note that my experience is from an Sony a55 body, this one not being out on the market yet.

Let's have a look at the body features first, knowing that it would costing a very gentle 699$:

• full time continuous AF in video
• 12 FPS (more than a D4...)
• full HD video at 60FPS
• no need to mention that all sensors in Nikon cameras are Sony made...

That sounds hot on the paper doesn't it? However, there's a reason why Sony hasn't had a real shot at this market.Their bodies are far away from flawless:

• ergonomics: hello where are the buttons when you need them?
• built quality is no match to Nikon
• as in music equipment where Sony stuff sounds "cold and electric", Sony imaging equipment looks blue. I don't know why they do it, but it's a tiny bit blueish.

You heard me, this Alpha 57 has to come with serious series of improvement over it's predecessors to be a  possible choice for me. However ready the announcement, it's pretty clear: none of it seems to be addressed to photographers. None of the key features of an actual camera are mentioned. It's all about FPS, big numbers etc.

Now let's throw an eye at the lenses.

What lenses? I counted 25 lenses available when there are about 100 and more for Nikon and Canon. That's without all the historical older lenses, from Nikon in particular, that will still work on your modern camera.

You will tell me: "yeah but we only need 10 great lenses to cover most needs". And yes you are right, so does Sony provide them? NO

• All the classic pieces such as 35mm or 50mm 1.4 are either average or poor performing. Bokeh looks bad (angry actually), sharpness drops under f2 etc.
• Some good piece from Zeiss, but they are way to expensive to make any sense on that camera body and budget wise.

You already know what my final word is: Sony is today not a serious competitor to Canon and Nikon. If you truly want to invest in a DSLR system looking for top level image quality, go for one of the big 2.

When you'll want to upgrade to maybe a more premium Nikon, you'll be happy you can keep your lenses from the first purchase, and not have to resell all you Sony stuff at a very low price.

Last word: you might have Sony stuff and be happy with it. Don't change your mind because you read that. The best camera is the one that allows you to create what you want. If it does, be happy :)

A selection of compact cameras

I often trash compact cameras on this blog, not because they are bad products, but mostly because I dislike the approach manufacturers are taking. Using vintage design to make you feel like you're the reporter from the 60ies and pricing it above 1000$, adding tons of useless features that sell well instead of focusing on the essential, and most of all launching systems that require tons of accessories since the margin on those is about twice than on camera bodies.

The fact is that in normal picture taking conditions - i.e. not at night with Syrian soldiers shooting at you and dust flying around - there are now compact cameras that will do just as good of a job as a DSLR.

Not everybody can afford a D700 or 5D, and not everybody want to go thru the hassle of buying, developing and scanning film. This is where compact cameras have a role to play, and thankfully there is a bunch of good ones. Also keep in mind that the best camera is the one in your and with a fresh roll / memory card and a full battery :)

Before we get to the cameras themselves, remember the rules. What matter in a camera is:

• The lens, less zoom + wider aperture (low F numbers) is best
• The size of the sensor, the larger the better

This being said, here are the compacts I'd pick from. Keep in mind a couple of important things: appart from the X100, all cameras mentioned here have changeable lenses. Those lenses cost a fortune. I believe they are overpriced for what they are because this is how manufacturers make most of the margin. It means that you should very much pay attention to what lens you buy in the first place.
Also if you will shoot fast moving subjects, use a lot of manual functions, you might want to look into DSLR. It is not more expensive than those cameras.

Also, I'm not doing a technical review here, they all do the same stuff. Trust me.

Panasonic Lumix GF3

My personal choice: it's significantly cheaper than the others, mostly due a small sensor, but not much smaller. You will hardly see a difference on the picture and save possibly 500$.

Sensor : 4/3
Lens to go for : 20mm f/1.7

Why getting it:

• Good choice of prime high quality & bright lenses
• Actually compact as opposed to the other ones.

Fujifilm X100

Sensor : APSC : as big as it get on a compact, same as a DX SLR such as a Canon 7D or Nikon D7000
Lens is built in camera but excellent: 35mm f2

Why getting it:

• Great lens
• Largest sensor you can find on a compact
• Built quality
• Good low light performance
• Have to say it... looks great
• No extra stuff to buy: one lens only

Sony NEX-7

Sensor : APSC (as big as it gets on compact)
Lens : plenty to chose from, go for the 24 & 50mm

Why getting it:

• Although very ugly, provides DSLR level performance, sensor is the same as on the Alpha Sony SLRs
• Huge definition (24MP)

Samsung NX200

Sensor : APSC

Lens : 30mm f2

Why getting it:

• 20MP if you need cropping a lot
• Still good ISO performance even with the large resolution

Ah ah ah, seriously? (Sony NEX 7)

The Sony NEX 7. An APS C sensor + cheap zoom lenses for 1350€ (1500$?).

Forget my language but, are you fucking kidding? Is it like a consumer test to see how stupid people are?
It drives me mad because I know some guys are going to spend half or more of their salary on this crap, then come to me and say "my pictures are not like I expected, it must be the settings, can you help me?". Well yeah I can: sell it, buy a camera.

I will always say things as they are we it comes to protect the costumer against crap marketing, that's what the Internet it for :)

The NEX 5 for 450$ is a good compact, it's worth what it provides, but this one is outrageous.

Let's attack it with method:

• The best camera in the world with a sensor this side is the Nikon D7000. It cost 900$ and can perform with premium Nikon lenses.
• The GF2 or even NEX5 can give you the exact same results. THE EXACT SAME. If not even better, because they all have much bigger pixels that this one.
• It's not even compact, it's reaching a size that makes it a completely retarded concept: it's more expensive than the best SLR on the market by an actual camera brand, and requires as big of a bag to carry around.
• Not to mention the long term value of those bastard concepts that won't have any lens available in 5 years when your D7000 will still be a very good camera with full support.
• The best medium format cameras in the world cost less than that. 

At 500$ it would be a good premium comp...no wait it's not even compact. So however you look at it, it doesn't make any sense ! Get a GF2 instead with the 20mm lens.

What DSLR to buy in October 2011.

Ho! Ho! Ho!

Ok I'm a little early, but Xmas is on the way, end of the year bonuses of Gran'Ma money too. Time to start deep diving into that DSLR market, have a look at the freshest products, and make up your mind !

DSLRs are a great way to get into serious photography. Costs are fixed, they are the most multipurpose cameras you can find, and unlike compacts the huge choice in lenses allows you to specialize your gear into whatever you like, portrait, macro, landscape.

Part 1 / Things to be aware of.

1. Picture quality comes from 3 things: the lens, the sensor (its size in particular) and your talent.
2. There is no such thing as a lens that is good at everything. Buy specialized. Multi purpose will be average at everything at best.
3. Don't get the kit lens. Buy body only. Apart from top of the range DSLRs, the kit lens is usually very average, a cheap multipurpose lens. A great all purpose lens doesn't exist, a good one cost 1200$. If you'r happy with the cheap kit lens, you probably shouldn't buy a DSLR.

As you can see, none of the fancy marketing crap you are bombarded with is among them. Forget built in HDR, shooting 80 frames per second, or rotative screen with plutonium based night vision with Cylon detector.

When you choose a camera, well don't choose the camera only, choose the package:

- What will I shoot? Out of the answer to that question you will decide what lens(es) to buy. Look into the lens range of different manufacturers first to eliminate those who can't get you what you want. You want to spend most of your money on lenses. Those will last 20 years, not your camera body. Some great lenses I have are older than me, they are still the best on the market. I know the camera body is sexier, all those buttons, screens...but don't be fooled. A great lens on a cheap body will give you a better image than a great body with a poor lens.

- Then choose the camera. Now there is something to be aware of that is not explained anywhere apart from customer service when you take back your lens to the shop: entry level DSLR don't have a built in motor, so they can't autofocus most prime lenses (35mm and 50mm fix lenses). Be aware of that ! You will end up getting one of those lenses one day, they are must haves. Would be too bad you need to buy an other body. Some manufacturers started making those with an engine, to adapt on those cheaper bodies. Have a look at the offer before you buy.

Part 2 / An overview of the main brands.
Whatever brand you pick, you won't really make a mistake. The short story for the ones in a hurry: if you intend to progressively level up your gear, and commit, go Canon or Nikon. I'd go Nikon, they are on top technology wise and in terms of built quality. But going Canon makes a very little difference.


Other wise, Sony and Pentax are not bad choices. I'd go Pentax over Sony, they know photography, but overal I don't see any reason why not go Nikon.

• Canon: a lot of marketing in the past decade at Canon, allowing them to position as the number 1 amateur DSLR brand. Now looking back at 50 years of camera history, Canon is not the top camera facturer, far from it. All great film SLRs are Nikon made, from the FE to the F5 / F6. All best pre digital era SLRs are Nikon made. However, in the nowadays market of DSLR, Canon will give you the same range of cameras and lenses than Nikon. Price wise, Canon is always in between 2 Nikon cameras (or Nikon is, it's all the same). Nikon will have a 500$ and a 900$ DSLR, Canon will have one at 750$, etc.  Feature wise, it'll be about in between too. Overal going Canon or Nikon makes a very little difference for a non pro, but here is why I'd go Nikon...

• Nikon:  the best SLRs, digital or film you can get. Period. Why that? The build quality is the best, the ergonomic of aperture and shutter speed control are the best, the metering system is the best since 1995 on the F5, and still far ahead of competition. The sensors and software behind it are the best, performing amazing in low light. All pros shooting digital or film top or the range SLRs are shooting F5 or D3. Finally, all your lenses will work with a brilliant 90$ Nikon film SLR. The D700 outperforms the 5DmkII. Not by much, but it does. Sorry Canon fanboys. Keep in mind that whatever brand you have, we're debating crumbs here, it won't change anything to your ability at taking great shots if you have it in you.

• Sony: the key benefit of Sony SLR bodies is the compatibility with (RIP) Minolta lenses. It's also the only other brand with a full frame offer, though I believe the camera is a bit old now. Their camera bodies are not bad at all, I just don't see why you would bother going at a brand that has no history in photography, a more limited lens offer (lenses are good though, no match from top of the range Nikon or Canon but good enough).  It's also harder to resell.

• Pentax: often disregarded by amateurs, Pentax is actually much more of a true hardcore camera manufacturer than all of the above. Their professional medium format film gear simply rocks the photography world. The 67II, 680II are pure marvels of the top level camera world, competing with Mamiya, Hasselblads and Rollei. Pentax knows better than Sony how to make cameras and lenses.  Pentax SLRs are very good. The recent K's have been praised by critics, but this one I admit I didn't have the opportunity to try (I tried 1 to 4 models of each of the above mentioned brands). I would still go for Nikon, for the same reason I'd get a coupe from Porsche and not from Audi, or food from a French restaurant rather than English: buy what someone is best at. Nikon is best at SLR. Pentax's key strength remains film medium format.

Part 3 / My advice for this winter !

My overal preference : best value for the money ratio (around 1000$).

1. It's a draw ! Nikon D7000 & Canon 600D. The Nikon is my last year's choice. There is nothing better for the money on the SLR market for photography (not for video). Of course D700 and D3 are better, but with the price tag of the Nikon D7000? No thanks, I'm not paying 5000$ for a 5% difference. Ultra high ISO performance, Nikon ergonomics, even the kit lens is decent. The Canon 600D has flaws, ergonomics and control can be crap (some essential part only accessible deep dive in the menu), but picture quality overall will be close to a D7000. Very good in low light too, articulated LCD is great for video (the D7000 doesn't have that). If you know video will be a key part, you might prefer that, it's also a tad cheaper (about a hundred). Be aware that focusing in live view (when looking at the screen, not the viewfinder) is always slower.

The Nikon D300 and Canon 7D are out of question: the D7000 is better than the D300S and cheaper, period. The 7D I had for a day was a great disappointment. At this price range, low light rendering and ergonomics were crap. D90 is too old and can't compete feature wise.

The low budget choice (around 500$)

1. Nikon D5100. AF system of a semi pro camera, not even really slow in live view. Great image quality. Can't AF with non DX prime lenses ! Make sure you lens is motorized, entry lever DSLRs don't have a built in motor.
2. Pentax K-r. The best for photography in this price range. High frame rate, good iso performance, small, good built quality etc. Sucks at movies (files are too large due to old jpeg format. For low budgets, the best.

D3100 is just so on cheap side that...I mean if you really can't afford more, I'm sorry but you won't be able to get the lenses either. Just get a good compact, or a used one (no shame, ALL my gear was bought used).

The high budget choice (full frame, 2000$-7000$)

1. Nikon D4: I know it's not out yet, but it will be before Xmas. My sources (a distributor) told me they will have a huge Nikon announcement in a week, i.e. early October. The D3X and D3S are overpriced, it's ridiculous. Yet they are the best DSLR cameras. Period. However they are not that young, spending that money on them now would be a little dumb. I would bet an arm the D4 is going to be the best you can get in 35mm format, and will remain the best for a while. It will stratospherically expensive, but if you can afford it...
2. Nikon D800. Same story, not out yet, but the D700 being the actual best full affordable full frame, its replacement should be quite the top of the range machine to own. I will buy one.
3. Leica M9. Ok that's not a SLR, it's a rangefinder, but if you read the price tag of a D3 and didn't blink, you might want to look into that. It's about the same price, you loose the AF and a lot of  feature (forget action shooting), but lenses will be at a all different level. Low light performance is great too, it's rather small in comparison, and resells value is unbeatable.

Canon 5D mkII ? No, built quality is disapointing, metering system is poor compared to my 1995 Nikon F5, and the low light noise is not as good as a D7000. Simply too old. Canon should announce a new top range camera soon too.

What DSLR to buy in December 2011 ?

Aaah Christmas, and with Christmas comes presents from your family or, from yourself but you just needed a reason to remove that guilty feeling when buying a new camera :)

Anyway, you made up your mind: you will get your first or upgrade your DSLR camera. The good thing is, you have plenty of choice, the bad thing is, you want to make sure you will spend those hundred or thousands of dollars wisely. Here is a guide to choice a DSLR, and my advice for this 2011 winter.

• Step 1: Canon or Nikon ??? Of course there are other DSLR brands like Sony, Pentax, doing a good job too, but I will exclude them for one simple reason : poor lens choice. So here we are, Canon or Nikon? This is a never ending debate and fanboys from both sides will counter argue forever, but well, there is some good advice I can give you.

RULE NUMBER 1 : THE LENS MAKES THE IMAGE QUALITY, NOT THE CAMERA BODY. Therefore pick the lense you like best, according to your photographic preferences (see my guide for lens picking here). Then pick the camera accordingly. Canon or Nikon, whatever you take, will both be good choices if you have the right lenses.

I however will share my bias toward Nikon, for reasons that I believe are quite objective:

-Better built quality, just handle a Nikon D700 next to a 5D mk II, it speaks for itself

-Nikon customer service is known to be the top.

-Nikon rules the world of high sensitivity sensors, the new D7000, a $ 1200 body, destroys everything that exist in the high ISO range. They just know how to do it better, and keep improving fast.

-Metering (what measures exposure and light in your camera) from Nikon is far ahead. 2000 RGB sensors in the finder when Canon still uses B&W sensors. This is since the old F5...a long time without improvement from Canon.

-Quality prime lenses in an affordable price range are more numerous at Nikon (35f2, 85mm f1.8). Canon primes are excellent too, but pricier.

Once again, Canons are good camera (got a S90 for my mum this Christmas, don't tell her yet), and you are the one to make the good pictures, not your camera. But if I had to chose, I'd go Nikon.

• Step 2: entry level, middle range or full frame DSLR?

This of course highly depends on your revenue. So I'll assume you can stretch up to the top if you have a good rational, but still are under money constraint.

I would avoid entry level for one reason: they don't have the built in motor to use autofocus on many prime lenses. Basically you try your new 50mm f1.8 and...no AF. That sucks. Also the few extra hundreds in this part of the range will give you great improvements, which is not the case in the highest prices tags (a $ 1200 D7000 is 95% as good as a $ 7000 D3X).

Top of the range FX (full frame, meaning that the sensor is the size of 35 mm film, 24x36) are if you are rich, or a pro, or a landscape lover. Otherwise they won't make any difference compared to a mid range DSLR in terms of picture quality. They have one fine characteristic however, that is no crop factor. A DX (non full frame, pretty much all DSLRs) has a sensor smaller than 24x36, so the image is cropped. With a 50mm lens, you in fact have a 85mm since it fakes the effect of a zoom. It's annoying for landscapes and wide angle users would might want to go full frame.

Mid range cameras such as Canon 550D & 7D or Nikon D90, and D7000 would have my preference. They are all good, but the D90 is getting a bit old. You have Canon lenses, go 550D. Cheaper than the 7D and I don't see much reasons to get the 7D.

You don't have Canon lenses? My choice among all of DSLR would be this: Nikon D7000 16.2MP DX-Format CMOS Digital SLR with 3.0-Inch LCD (Body Only). Why?

• best metering system, AF and sensor that exist in this format in the world (so pretty much all the main features of a camera)
• is 95% as good as the terrific $7000 D3X for $1200, and smaller / lighter.
• is Nikon.

I totally share Ken Rockwell's opinion on the D7000. The Nikon D700 FX is bloody fantastic already, and performs better in color noise, but the difference in price tag make the D7000 a better camera for the money. At the same time, D700 prices are dropping lately...

My dream pack for Christmas : D7000 + 35mmF2 for artists, D7000 + 16-85mm for the rest. With the light sensitivity you get on this body, no need for super large apertures.