Product Review: Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AIS

Let's start this one with a fact: image quality comes from:

1. The photographer / Scene / Light
2. The lens
3. ... (other stuff)...
4. The camera body (the sensor mostly for digital)

With this absolute truth in mind, and knowing that you can't buy point 1, the first thing you should spend your money on is a great classic lens. The Nikon 50mm f/1.2 AIS is one of them.

It wil allow you that kind of result...

The Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is a manual focus only tank-like built premium prime lens (it costs 650$ in the States, up to 800€ on the old continent). It is know online as the "king of bokeh", which is to be honest a very well deserved title. 

I works with a D7000 or anything above for digital, and anything from and after the 70ies for film. I use it with a Nikon FE, F5 and D80. 

Keep in mind that with a D80, you get no metering, so you have to guesstimate light. I personally use it on the FE mostly so I don't really care.

Specifications

• 9 blades diagram
• 52mm diameter glass
• Minimum focus distance 50cm
• 350 grams
• 50mm or 76 on a DX.

Results

Sweeet. If you shoot non moving subjects in 35mm and own a Nikon, that is the one lens you should own.

Sharpness: I can use it with a D80 at F1.2 & iso 400 and get a result that I would exhibit. From F2.0,  and up, it keeps getting better and better. It outperforms my 85mm 1.8 and 35 F2 FX lenses

Blur / Bokeh: see for yourselves, terrific.

Built quality: Nikon from the past, as good as it gets, full metal.

Pros 

• As mentioned before, performance according to standard measurement is just rock solid. It just doesn't get better with 35mm. Only Zeiss and Leica are a match, for a lot more money when it comes to the later.
• This plus a 100$ Nikon FE2 and you have a nice machine, simple to operate for a true photographer. With a D700 you have a winning cocktail for 35mm digital when it comes to shooting steady subjects.
• The bokeh can get close to what you'll obtain with a medium format 6x7 camera at 2.8. Not the same, but close enough to tempt you to shoot 35mm.
• IF YOU LIKE IT: wide open it adds a bit of vignetting (see examples below)

Cons

• No autofocus, and you'll need to change the screen on your D7000 or D700 to focus manually. On an older FE, such screens are built in, on more recent camera it'll cake you a bit of screw driving. 
• At 1.2, it can be tricky to manually focus, especially on DX.
• Sort of expensive for 35mm gear (yet cheap against bad quality zooms)
• IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT: wide open it adds a bit of vignetting

And because samples are worth a thousand words, see for yourselves. No need to take pictures of newspapers, that's retarded, every lens is sharp in the right conditions. Let's start with a bit of corner sharpness.

Nikon D80 ISO 200, 1/160s, f5.6, consider the crop factor

And now what this lens is famous for, it's superb bokeh:

With an old D80, 1/50s, ISO 400 (on a D80 it's like ISO1600 on a D7000), bad office light at 6pm, wide open @ F1.2.

Courtesy of that guy on Flickr, D700 1/5000s, ISO 200, F1.2

With a D7000, courtesy of that guy.

With a D700, courtesy of LEFTY

Nikon FE, Superia 200 (shit film, grain at 200 ???WTF) here at f2.8. Don't they look like a Law and Order commercial?

Nikon FE, Superia 200, f2.0

I kept this shot to show there is a tiny bit of distortion (I was 2 feet away from the door). This is full frame. 

 My friend Yann (and a bit of Sofia's finger)

1/10s very low light, ISO 200, F1.2. On Superia cheap film: still sharp, beautiful blur. 

D7000 VS D700 and image feel

Hi,

Let me try to actually add something to that debate.

Lately I got tired of waiting for a D800 that is likely to cost an arm. An also remembered that it won't change a thing to my photography whatever the technological advancement. So I remember why I want to upgrade from my good ol' D80:

• I want to be able to shoot up to 3200 ISO

• I want a state of the art metering system like only Nikon can do

• I am truly considering video as an interesting extension to what I do

• but most the most important expectation of all: I want to get closer to the image "feel" of a large sensor film camera.

This is when it gets tricky: last night I spend 2 hours searching a back to back image comparison between the Nikon D7000 and Nikon D700 , but I was looking for a nice portrait with a 85mm fast lens. I didn't want to compare pixels, I wanted to compare how the image felt. I wanted to see that difference coming from a mixture of technical details coming together, creating a different texture, impression.

But no, all I could find was high ISO test shots and pictures of a control grid for sharpness and chromatic aberrations. I mean, do you guys even care about the pictures???

I see photography as painting, it's just that I suck with a brush so I use a camera. However I bet no one compare brushes'... hair -or whatever you call it- in painting forums without showing an actual painting in the end !

So my question remains unanswered: I have never been able to see real shots, taken with the actual intention of creating a beautiful image,  with both those cameras, in full size, in order to compare on they feel. Only lab test shots.

I'll try to provide you with some at the end of this post.

My conclusions so far are:

• Everyone who says: "oh in the end go Nikon D700 , it's FX (full frame sensor)", or "Do you need FX?" can't argue beyond that. Apart from the ISO performance, they don't seem to be able to tell if images actually feel better. Only Ken Rockwell mention the finder size as an element of comfort. But clearly to him, image quality is the same.

• From what I saw, the Nikon D7000 performs just as well in low light, differences are pointless for someone who cares about pictures. Such a person would not shoot beyond 1600 anyway, 3200 max. Going higher is just masturbating on gear.

• I was not stricken by a huge difference in image feel between the Nikon D700 and Nikon D7000, by looking at different images that unfortunately weren't really comparable. Sensor surface of the D700 is more than twice as big as the Nikon D7000 , however, it does not strike me. I once shot with a D80 and D700, in natural sun light, for a juice brand campaign. All with FX prime lenses. Inside, the D700 was raping the D80, noise related. Outside, it was very very hard to guess what image was from what camera, when shot at iso100. On some shot you can perceive that the D700 allows narrower DOF, which is tempting, but I can get that by opening wider...not worth the extra thousand bucks. I saw my shots on large posters in town, same here, I couldn't tell which one I shot with what camera.

• The Nikon D7000 has a 2 000 dots RGB metering system. That rocks. I mean no other camera has it: it mean superior exposure and dynamic range than any other camera. That appeals to me.

• It's all about the lens. See the very last photo in that post. It speaks for itself. Get a D7000 + a really premium lens. Actually, I've seen shots with the lens used on the last shot (55mm F1.2 pre AIS) on a Sony NEX 3, and yes, it felt as good as if taken with a D700. It's all about the lens.

In the end, the rational answer is that the 2 cameras are strictly equivalent from a performance point of view, with strengths that differ: the D7000 has stronger battery life, metering, and video capacity, the D700 has a more comfy view finder, allows you to make the most of your FX lenses, performs a little better in very low light if you shoot animals at night etc.

If you put the price in the equation...the Nikon D7000 clearly wins. Let's put it this way: the only advantage of the D700 is the sensor surface. 

I know I know, I keep saying sensor size is key, and anything below 24x36 is not suitable for pro stuff. And yes it's consistent with me shooting 60x70mm all the time, but between DX and FX...it's not that striking. So I'll wait for the D800 pricing, but if it's too high, I'll probably go Nikon D7000 .

See for yourselves with those pictures, taken by a skilled amateur:

First a D700 shot: metering is not perfect, bokeh is nice,70mm F2.8, iso 1600. Nice.

    D700, F3, 150mm, ISO 800

    Now D7000 shots: F8, ISO 2200, 180mm. Superb metering.

    D7000: F2.8, ISO 100, 180mm. 

    Finally my favorite one: D7000, 55mm F1.2 pre AI @ F2. ISO 100. My point: it's all about the 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.