A Camera Diary: nikon

Apologies to my followers, I have been way too busy with the part of my life that pays the bills to post as much as I should have. I will start adding more and more content to the site, and probably revamp the format a little bit.

Until then, time to update the gear recommendation section (Christmas is coming)! Many of you told me that what they liked best about this blog is the fact that I filter out marketing junk to recommend the cameras they actually need, at the benefit of their wallet. I'll then make sure this post follows the same principle, that is to say pushing you towards the camera that is best for your need and budget, while explaining you why such and such characteristic is more or less useless for you.

First let's remind everyone of the following: image quality comes strictly from the sensor, the lens and you. Every choice of camera bellow, no matter what is your need, will be based on this. Therefor it is important that you read the following if you are not too savvy about cameras.

The sensor

The bigger the sensor, the better. Noise, blur, 3 dimensional rendering, crispness of the image. All of this improves when the sensor gets bigger. Sensors are never names after their size, that would be too easy for you to figure out stuff. They are called micro four third, APC, APS-C etc. No matter what your budget is, you should look for the comparably priced camera with the biggest sensor. That all. Here is a chart to show you what that means:

Credits to Paul Fox

The lens

The rules with lenses are about as simple as for sensors: the simpler the lens, the better. For example, a prime lens (no zoom), will always perform better (sharpness and low light) simply because it can be optimized for a single focal length. On the other hand, a huge zoom will be average at everything, because compromises needs being made. Concretely, you need to balance functionality with image quality. Keep in mind that a X40 zoom lens on a 300$ camera is very suspicious. It probably is very very crappy. I selected cameras that privilege a decent compromise, or mostly image quality.

You

Yes you ! You probably already have a decent camera, and you might be thinking that a better camera will allow you to take better pictures. You've never been so wrong, probably. Indeed, learn how to use your equipment before buying. Try manual settings, learn the basics, and you might realize it was right there all along.

For the casual shooter with a small / medium budget

Let's be honest, 90% of all cameras sold will be used very casually: big vacation coming up, baby on the way, or desire to make a fancy gift, compact cameras are often the kind of product you buy because you feel like getting a nice gadget, treat yourself with something to play with. Good news everyone: those are perfectly valid reasons to buy things ! Yet, it doesn't mean you should spend your money unwisely.

If you belong to that category, the "I just want an easy to use camera that does a job" people, keep in mind that you are the main target for marketers trying to sell you bullshit features and fake innovations. On the lower end side of things, let's be honest, image quality is about the same. You should privilege good travel companions, preferably rugged, possibly water & shock proof. Avoid mega zooms, they are useless because you won't be stabilized or have a bright enough lens to shoot sharp most of the time.

SH-25MR : because Olympus always made reliable cameras and good lenses over decades, because it is cheap, has image stabilization and because it's not pink. It has a touchscreen, a GPS and full HD recording. You can't possibly get more at this price. Many compacts over similar features, but for this christmas, this one is also among the most recent ones.

Olympus SH 25MR

Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5K : in case you party / travel hard. It will resist dives in ocean, swimming pools or beer. All compact waterproof cameras have the same size sensor and type of lens, and to be honest they are pretty close to one another. The overall package on the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5K appears to be the best.

Panasonic Lumix FT5

For the casual shooter with little a decent budget

You are still a vacation shooter, you just have a bit more money. Go for either one of the following pieces.

Sony NEX-5 (or 3): it has an APS-C sensor (see chart above, second biggest after full frame), and quality interchangeable lenses. It to a large extent the same cameras as the NEX 7 which is a lot more expensive, due to marketers choice to segment the range. Also, as you learn and enjoy shooting, you'll be able to upgrade via new lenses, instead of changing it all.

Sony Nex 5

Fujifilm X100S : if photography tickles your arty bone, and you want a camera that will allow you to explore photography as a proper hobby, I recommend models that offer manual controls, and with simpler, higher quality lenses. The most obvious product is the Fujifilm X100S , that is essentially an excellent sensor and an excellent prime lens, in a well built body. In other words, a good camera. It only suffers from a autofocus that could be a tad bit faster. Yet it, its quality easily overcome that little flaw.

Fuji X100S

Olympus OM-D : the limit of the Fujifilm X100S is the fix lens, 35mm only, which mean no zooming. A good alternative if the constraint of a fix lens is too much for you is still the Olympus OM-D , which a already recommended in the past. The sensor is a bit smaller but still of a decent size, and the camera body is weather sealed. With a vast array of interchangeable lenses, it makes it more versatile than the Fujifilm X100S . For the traveler, it might be an even better choice.

Olympus OM-D

For the advanced amateur who is willing to blow way too much money on cameras (you'll recognize yourself)

First of all, you need to bullshit your wife/husband on why you need a new camera. You are on your own, sorry. Once you've achieve getting away with it without too much blame, you might want to consider those babies:

Nikon D610 or Nikon Df , they are essentially the same camera. The Nikon Df looks way cooler, and the smaller resolution (i.e bigger pixels) allows better low light performance, as well as easier to process files. It's also a bit lighter. If you don't print large, I'd go with the Nikon Df, but it's 95% the same camera. Although, at 1000$ more than the D610, it's a but a of a joke, you clearly pay for design and marketing, up to you if you can afford it. Why Nikon? It is superior to Canon on built quality, customer service, sensor, metering...well you get the picture. Of course, a talented photographer will always take better pictures with a Canon over a bad Nikon user, and to be honest, who can spot the difference on picture, knowing that lenses do most of the job. Yet, if you are a lab rat, Nikon wins. If you are just a customer who care about 2 important things (durability and customer support), Nikon wins. Last but not least, the basic high quality prime lenses at Nikon are fairly cheap: the 35mm F2 full frame is around 400$.

Nikon D600

Nikon Df

You should not get a D800. It is too big to carry around, files are enormous to process (you probably would need a new computer too), and unless you print A1 format, it is simply useless.

Those who are scared of the Nikon D610 because of sensor issues, be reassured: the issue doesn't affect the D610, and if you were to get a cheaper D600, nikon replaces the entire defective part for free, even outside the warrantee. I had mine redone, they are really cool about it. Overall they offer the best customer service.

I thought for a second of recommending a Fuji system, such as the XPro1, but I decided not too for the following reasons:

It isn't even smaller
Zeiss lenses are brilliant, but so are Nikon premium lenses
You pay the design and premium positioning

For the advanced amateur who wants to switch to {troll alert} real photography

You came to your senses: 98 megapixels, hybrid sensors with TRX 8000 technology and other geeky things don't make a good camera. Format does ! But what larger format camera to go for? What are you options:

645 film: greater portability, often with metering and auto focus, cheaper, 15 shots per roll of film
6x6 and 6x7 film : even greater images as the format grows in size, bulkier, often without metering. Avoid when traveling.
Large format film : stunning images, huge, requires mastery of photography basics, exposure etc.

I purposely don't mention here medium format digital cameras, for two reasons: 33x44mm is not medium format, and mostly, if you can afford one (roughly the price of a nice BMW 3 series) you can afford every camera mentioned in this post, so choice isn't really a problem for you.

645 film cameras
Go for a Pentax 645 or Contax 645. I like Mamiya too, but in that format, the other two are a tad better both in terms of lenses and built quality. There are many version, AF or no AF, compatible with digital backs etc. Get them used, but check the version, they are mostly called the same yet some can be a decade older.

6x6 or 6x7 cameras
Go for the Pentax 67 II if you do portraits. Go for the Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7 if you travel and do lanscape. I'd pick the Mamiya 6 for travel since it gives you a couple of extra frame per roll.

Large format cameras
I don't have for a habit to talk on this blog about thing I don't master properly. For good advice on picking a large format camera, I recommend you read this instead, or this.

For the pro

Come on, you're a pro, you should know what you need! Otherwise don't call yourself a pro, you're a phony :p

But you probably want a D800 and a Pentax 67II, just saying.

Not too long ago, I visited a friend of mine in Barcelona; I hadn't seen her in a long time. I once shot her in Ireland, on the beach near Drogheda (north of Dublin). Back in the days I published very few of those pictures, but visiting her reminded me to look into my old negatives. And that takes me to a interesting point about photography: how unique can a picture actually be?

Let's take a painter, or a band: both have elements that make them who they are in a unique, hard to replicate way. When you see a Dali, well you know it's a Dali. You can either have a copy, in which case there was no intention to be creative in the first place. Or you can have an other painting inspired by Dali's style, with hopefully an extra personal touch from that other painter, which makes it unique in some way. Back to the musical comparison, no one sounds like Liam Gallagher or Till Lindemann. Sure some bands like Muse and Placebo sound a little bit the same if you don't pay attention, but the lyrics are unique, and the songs and melodies are too.

So what about photography? Let's be honest, in the field of fashion anyone could learn how to reproduce a high production value shot. It's pure technique: get the same/similar model that poses the same way, light can be learned, editing too, cameras all work the same. The fact is, I dare you to tell me in fashion magazines that you can recognize the style of each photographer, and regroup images under the name of who shot them. You just can't. Even guys like Terry Richardson - who has a little "je ne sais quoi" but it's minor and mostly based on sex and celebrities- well even his shots look the same as anybody else's when he tries to do clean fashion. Same goes with landscapes and many other genres.

With the internet we are exposed to a huge melee of good pros, awful photographers that are pros (they earn a living with it, but still sucks balls real bad), and amateurs that are much better than pros. They all post, blog, flickr, and have easy access to millions of images. It leads to uniformity and trends (lately cross processing effects and faded color halos). It is really becoming very hard to shoot with a clean mind, free of all the nice images you've seen somewhere else.

So what makes an photograph unique? In my opinion it is about:

the story it tells, and that mostly concerns documentaries and journalists. This is why I worship war photographers and those who seek to be there in that special moment, that image that will tell a story.
your relationship with the people you are shooting, and that is good news. You copied techniques from other photographers? You used the same post processing as many? Don't feel bad. It looks good doesn't it? Then enjoy. The thing is, when you shoot someone you care about, or even hate (as long as there is a feeling), there will be in your picture something that only you can see, whatever is personal. In addition to that, if you friend likes the way he/she feels about himself/herself thru your eyes, you added a nice little thing to your relationship with him/her. That picture won't matter to most, but to you two it will.

This is why I love photography, is it a major form of art in the sense that it's all snobbishly unique and hard to do? No. It is a major form of art because it's accessible, personal, naturally appealing to everyone. People always want to see the pictures don't they? So sure there is a lot of trash among the gazillion tons of pictures that have been posted in the past 20 years, but so much great shots in the middle that could be from anyone. And again, there could be that one picture no one but you cares about but you, because it tells your story and the story of a friend.

So I'm home looking at those old scans (Nikon FE and Mamiya 67 cameras), and as I've had a great time with my friend in Barcelona, getting to know her much better, I now project her personality and emotions onto each image so much more than before. Sometimes, shoot the ones you love instead of random people, you'll like your pictures better, and do something nice for a friend or family member. This is my friend, her name is Natalija.