D800 rating #1 at DxOmark

...what the hell is DxOmark?

DxOMark is "the trusted industry standard for camera and lens independent image quality measurements and ratings. "


In other words, if you wonder how your sensor performs against an other, and argue online based on your visual interpretation of  a 1:1 crop, give it up, check DxOmark, close the debate. Then you'll be able to stop counting pixels and do some actual photography :)


Now wait, if I despise pixel counting, why am I mentioning that ranking? Answering this question requires asking an other question: why do some people still shoot film? Well among the reasons, film has a much superior dynamic range than any digital sensor. That is simply an awesome property and one of the reasons I shoot mostly film no matter what. It means you can shoot a high contrast scene and both dark and bright zones will come out with a proper level of exposure. Beyond the technical talk, it just makes photographs way more subtle, refined, colors are nicer, and landscapes in particular looks a zillion times better. Digital photographer use filters, or HDR (high dynamic range) to simulate the better dynamic range of film. 


But now, look at this: 

At ISO100, 200 and 400, the D800 offers even better dynamic range than a D4. This + 36MP + built in HDR mode make it the best landscape SLR you can which for. Of course, any large format camera will destroy it, but for digital, it's good stuff. It overtakes the D700 all the way, and only the D4 ranks better from ISO 800 and above.


Every camera is best at something, for large prints plenty of light shots, or long exposures, the D800 is your friend. 


Oh and according to the ranking, the D800's sensor doesn't only overtake the D4, it also is ahead of the 50000$ Phase One IQ180MP best of the best digital medium format camera... So i'll say it: when I heard about the 36MP, I was like "yeah right...crap". I was wrong.

D800, medium format and other considerations

Lately the best looking color shots I have seen were from Jan Scholz on Polaroid Fp100c. Looks like a Wermeer painting, terrific !

Go outside and shoot stuff that makes someone feel something, that's what matters. If you don't have this as a main goal when shooting, you're not a artist in my book.

Now that I've reminded you that gear is meaningless, we can talk about gear a little bit :)

Today I have read some of the dumbest comments from wannabe journalists about the D800 stepping foot in medium format territory. The best of all being "If you have never shot medium format, this will blow your mind" by someone I won't name because everyone makes mistakes.

We are being served with a double dose of retardation driven by that gear frenzy everyone get caught into when a new super camera comes out.

First of all stop implying you did shoot MF and know what you're talking about. Most of those who write those troll lines don't even know what the zone system is, so using a MF camera... Also, such phrasing implies that format = resolution (number of MP) when those two things have not a bloody thing to do with one another ! 

Format is about how large the light receiving element is. Larger, it takes completely different lenses that perform, due to the laws of physics, in a different world. Give an SLR 120MP, it will still be nowhere near the image feel of a true MF. I mean a 66, 67 or 69 film one, not those fake digital MF overprice machines. 

The fact is, I have seen those D800 samples like all of us, and appart from a certain feel of clarity coming from the high resolution, it is not impressive at all from an image feel stand point (also the photographers are crap, appart from that tree shot, those portraits on the Nikon site are rubbish). 

In a 12% view on a screen at ISO100, you still won't see the difference with any other SLR. When non official unknown D800 shots are out, I'll be more than willing to demonstrate it by putting people to a blind test. 36MP only allows to print bigger, it's for advertising purposes or graphic designers who crop a lot. It is one feature, non related to image feel whatsoever (what a photographer should actually care about), useful for one kind of profesional usage. Getting all horny about it is ridiculous. It's a working tool for pros, it means that by exposing better automatically, you save processing time. Same for USB3, etc. It's like having a sharper knife for a cook, it doesn't make you a better cook. If you can shoot any camera will do. A good cook can pull a nice dinner is the kitchen of a student's studio.

That what you get using a pricey D3S... no wait, oh no! That's taken with a 2001 Olympus C5050 5MP compact. Does it feel right? Feels right to me. 

Back to the medium format point. 

Nothing can match large and medium format film for definition, clarity, color rendering and dynamic range. More important, nothing can match the feel of medium and large format unless with a 35mm sensor. Innovate all you want, it's physics. 

Disregarding the cost, the D4 makes a lot more sense than the D800 to me because it allows doing something film can't do: shooting fast in low light, for journalists, action shooters. But if you want portrait and landscape at its best and don't need productivity scale, you can buy all the digital 35mm gear you want, it will still be a horse, and large formats cameras will still be cars. 

For a pro shooting fashion...well if you get deals to shoot for Vogue, you can afford a Phase One 80MP Medium Format sensor. I actually see the D800 as a paparazzi camera: with the French riviera sunlight, a huge telezoom and the pixels, you can get a sharp image of Lady Gaga's nipple slip from very far away. 

Hooray

So what are my points?

1/ For many uses, nothing matches larger formats on film. No matter what crappy journalist says after being invited by Nikon to a nice hotel :)

• Medium format is medium format. Take a portrait with a Fujica 690 and compared to anything from a 35mm on an A2 print. You will cry blood if you bought your 35mm 4000$ with the intention of taking the best looking portraits.
• Take a landscape picture with a large format camera and do the same comparison. You will cry your eyes out if you spent 4500$ in a D800 + wide angle lens.

Large format baby, imagine this one in a large print, look at the trees, the dimensions. You'll never get close to this in 35mm. Get the right tool for the work you want to do. Courtesy of Pierre Herbert, RIP.

67 medium format (900$ used). If I was to upload the 40 megabytes scan of this, you could (why would you but you could) count the veins in her eyes. To be seen on a large print once again for proper rendering.

2/ A D800 is a nice tool for someone who lives in a studio. It's a cheap alternative to a Phase One. That's what it's probably excellent at. Other than that, it is just an other 35mm camera: convenient to use for average results. 

• In 2 years a 1200$ body will come out that will have even more software features and whatever else they will try to sell you.
• If you don't print A2 and above you don't need it. Stop trying to convince yourself that you do because you're bored in life and the thrill of spend 3 grands on a new toy wakes you up.

3/ Know what you shoot. You probably already have a great camera for what you like to do. 

• If you do a lot of post processing, maybe the D800 is a good idea if you have the money, but if you like the digital feel of images...what can you do with a D800 that you couldn't with a D7000? really? I mean 5 year ago pros where working with 12MP cameras, so don't tell me you need 36MP for editing.
• If you like action and wildlife, a now cheaper D700 (erratum, not discontinued apparently) is better. Or a D4 if you can afford it, or a D3S.
• If you like landscape, go large format and take the time to work your shots. If you need to carry it in a backback, get a Mamiya 7 with Velvia film.
• If you shoot for Vogue, why not a D800, but you are probably not reading this blog anyway.
• If you like making videos, well I have no clue I don't shoot videos.

67 medium format film (900$ used camera). Here again I wish you could see the full file. 12000 pixels by 14000, you can nearly read motivational posters inside offices. Sharper, more defined than anything any 35mm can get you.

4/ The D4, D800, 1D, 5D and all are just tools, they don't make you a good photographer. Most samples or demo shots I see are photographically boring as death. The French have an expression for that: "tout ça pour ça?". It our case, it would translate into "all that pixel talk and money for those images you'll never look at again a week after unloading your memory card?"

Nikon D4 and Fuji X pro1, and a potential RIP.

A lot of hot news today, a good one, a so so one, and a bad one.

The good one first: 
Fuji is doing a interchangeable lens compact with a DX DSLR size sensor. The X Pro 1, for March. It should be 1300€ with the 35mm 1.4 lens. It is good because this is in line with the well built X100, because Fujinon lenses are likely to compare to good SLR lenses, they are prime lenses not zooms (18 F2, 35 F1.4 and 60 F2.4). It is probably too expensive but well, for a traveler looking for SLR quality in a compact solid format, this could be the best product around.

The so so news:
Nikon announced the D4. Yeeaaahh.... Available in March for only 5800€ or 6000$. It will shoot very fast, be very very very light sensitive (due to 16mp on a large sensor, a good thing), it will measure light really well, focus really well etc etc.
Why is it so so: if you are a sports, wildlife or war photographer, good for you. It also films really well. And you can expense it as a pro. In that case it's a brilliant camera. For other...more patience.
For every one else, it's useless and too expensive, and certainly not worth the extra 4500$ you'll need to spend to step up from a D700.
It's a good news because soon you'll be able to get a D700 for 1500$ :)

The sad news:
Kodak is nearly dead. They are on the edge of bankruptcy. They completely ignored digital, never believe in it. Plain dumb. However it is sad, because the best B&W film I know is Tri X, and I really really hope they will keep on making film...

Nikon D800 rumors ?

According to Japanese site digicame-info , the future Nikon full frame would have the following features:

• 36MP FX sensor
• 4 FPS (6 FPS in DX mode)
• the usual full HD video
• dual slot SD / CF
• 300 000 yen price tag...i.e. 3900$ !!!
• UPDATE: ISO range up to 6400. It confirms my fears: too many pixel affects low light performance.
• OTHER UPDATE: I forgot it's a Nikon's policy to push people not to shoot above 3200 iso, so performance at 1600 / 3200 might still be good. Overal I don't believe it will be priced at 4K. There is no real market here, and it would leave too much room to the Canon 5D...

Now my OWN SOURCES (yes, I do have some, local distributor contacted by Nikon for an announcement), the D700 will remain at a slightly lower price tag, in order to allow a slighly more expensive D800 (around 2900€ / $).

Those cameras are for action, sports....please FPS + low light performance !

Those are rumors, but nikonrumors.com give the 36MP a 99% credibility...they are usually pretty accurate close to announcements.

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.