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

Olympus OMD EM5

The Olympus OM-D E-M5is Olympus' answer to the trend of premium compacts, such as the Fuji X100, Nex 7 and other expensive toys. You can see me coming "hey Ronan only likes medium format stuff, he is snob, he'll trash it". Well this time, I'll recommend it. Keep reading.

I don't like the pricey accessories with maximum margin on those cameras, but I have to admit that a compact alternative to a DX SLR, for travel and street photography, can be seductive. However to be satisfactory, it should be comparable in performance and priced correctly. Indeed, if your compact costs the price of a Nikon or Canon DX SLR, why not getting Nikon or Canon? If you ever get a full frame for more serious work, you'll have 2 ranges of lenses to maintain. No good.

1/ So let's have a look at the camera itself, numbers first:

• micro four third sensor (a tad smaller than a DX)
• 16MP
• 9 FPS
• according to them the fastest AF in the world
• soon to come 75 mm f1.8 and 60mm f2.8 macro lenses 
• ISO range up to 25600
• Water and dust proof
• 1299$ with a 18-50mm lens

On the paper, it looks fine. 16MP seems just right for that sensor size, it should allow great ISO performance. Fast AF? Yes please, it's the main weakness of the Fuji X100. The Fuji has a better lens than any of the OMD EM5 lenses, but it's only a 35mm and the camera focuses terribly slow. ISO performance? See for yourself. It is very good.

3200 iso, courtesy of DP review

6400 iso

What else do I like about it?

• The 4/3 format, much better for composition in my taste than normal 35mm sensors. I'm used to shoot 6/7 format most of the time. 
• Ergonomics feels  right, handling is good, not those dodgy shapes some compacts have.
• It's tropicalized ! perfect for travel.
• It looks alright
• Much lighter than a SLR (half a D800)
• It's actually small

2/ The most important part, how about lenses?

This is probably where this camera strikes hard. There is more than a very decent choice of lenses, especially fix focal length high aperture lenses. Those Olympus Zuiko lenses are very good, much better than, for example, the Sony SLR lenses. 

Some of those lenses don't have the nicest bokeh i've seen, but some are actually really good, here is my short list:

• Zuiko Digital ED 45mm f/1.8 , cheap and very good! The ideal portrait lens for such a camera.
• Zuiko Digital ED 12mm f/2.0 , a bit pricier, but your companion for tourist, landscape and architecture
• Zuiko 17mm f/2.8 pancake: if you travel light, and want one lens only that won't make the camera bigger. It's also the ideal all purpose focal length, and with the ISO performance of the camera f2.8 is good. Maybe not as high level as the previous ones, but very cheap.

Keep in mind that there are 2 more to come that look very interesting (75mm f1.8, 60mm macro f2.8).

Conclusion

Let it be clear: with a fix focal length, this camera will give you the same performance as an entry level DSLR, or even a mid range. No doubt. I definitely recommend the Olympus OM-D E-M5. I know I was skeptical during previews, sensor seemed a bit small, but in the end it's a product that is very coherent around a purpose: travel and documentary photography. I'll post home made shots as soon as possible.

So why getting one:

• If you are about to travel the world and what something versatile, able to shoot in low light and perform great yet without screaming out loud "steal me I'm a DSLR!", this is a great choice. Take the 12mm and the yet to come 75 f1.8, or any combination of 2 primes that make sense for you
• It is water and dust proof, and has fast AF and FPS... really it sound great for adventure.
• If you're an amateur and you know you'll never get anything bigger. It'll be your only camera. Then yes, I recommend it.

Why not getting one:

• If it is to be one camera in a larger line up of camera you intend to use for different purposes, you might want to be looking at synergies. My example: I have old Nikon film, a D800 (next week), a FE, F5, a D80. I stick to Nikon, 3 lenses for all my cameras. If you own a D3S for example and want something smaller for travel, get a D7000 and keep your lenses.
• For telezoom work, nothing beats a proper SLR lens.
• Lenses are pricey. Nearly as much as for a DX SLR. Therefor your overall budget will be comparable to getting a Nikon D7000 with 2 lenses in the end. Sure it's lighter, water sealed, large screen and all, but Nikon lenses will still have the edge, and the D7000 has a larger sensor. Keep that is mind, it's not a bargain against a DSLR.
• One day, they'll do the same with a full frame sensor...but then again, one days cars will fly, you are still going to get one.

Some example shots:

with 45mm 1.8 courtesy of http://robinwong.blogspot.com/

With the 50mm f2 macro. Still from Robin Wong.

Canon S100 or Fuji X10 ?

In my winter 2011 recommendations, I had the Canon S100 as the compact camera of my choice. I've also been following closely the new Fuji X line, and now that the X10 has been out for a little while, time for a comparison.

First of all, let's see what they have in common:

• bright F2 lenses, 24-120mm for the S100 and 28-112mm for the X10 , so pretty much the same here
• full HD video capabilities
• good under the hood software, both cameras process images pretty well
• both are from real camera brands, which means a proper experience in lens manufacturing
• 12MP sensors, but that doesn't really matter

Now let's have a look at the essential differences, starting with what's in favor of the S100 :

• It is significantly smaller, and the lens folds flat when off
• it has high speed video recording (240fps), a gadget surely but it can be fun if you shoot action with it
• Cheaper, but at least 100$
• better dynamic range on the paper

What does the X10 has for himself:

• larger sensor, leading to better low light performance
• bigger = better handling, I find the S100 a little too small for my long fingers. It's a matter of choice
• normal video recording is at 30 fps VS 24 fps for the S100
• 10 fps shooting
• much faster to operate, in particular shutter response time is significantly better
• built quality and looks, it does looks really good
• better battery life (although not amazing either)
• more manual controls

Looking at this summary, it looks like there won't be an obvious choice here. If the X10 seem to win in several areas, differences are minor. For example, ISO performance is better, but it's already very good on the S100 . 

The most important part being the lens, both are a really good choice since both lenses are about equivalent, and smart. They avoided the ridiculous X72 zooms that ruin image quality and are totally useless.

Be sure of something: YOU WON'T TAKE BETTER PICTURE BY PICKING ONE OVER THE OTHER. It's purely a matter of ease of use, preference in regards to ergonomics. I'd say try them in store and pick the one that comes in hand best. However, you didn't read all of this to be told "go see in the next Best Buy". So here is my personal call:

I have DSLR, SLR, Medium format gear. If I am to buy such product, I want a pocket fitting camera for mountain biking, skying, etc. I also wouldn't like to put to much money in it. I would still pick the S100 . Differences are so little that the size and feature / $ ratio wins.

If It was to be my only camera, it would be the X10 . Because it reacts much faster, and having a delay between pressing the shutter and the picture being taken sucks big time. It also offer more manual controls, which for experimenting is nice. It's overal a little better, and looks much prettier which as irrational as it is, would matter a little. I also do have a little preference for the way it processed dynamic range: photo with heavy contrast tend to come up a little more flattering on the X10 for my taste, even though the S100 has in theory better dynamic range.

Be sure you don't make a mistake buying any of those 2 cameras. Also know that ergonomics and software on the X10 is better than on the $1200 Fuji X100!

 An other good trick: the S100 and S95 are the same. It's like getting the 2012 car instead of the 2011. It's just a marketing thing. So go find a S95 for cheaper :)