Nikon D600 + Nikkor 24-70: A Day with My Precious Ones (and my kids too)

Last weekend I took our kids to Disneyland - just the three of us.  It was my first time to bring them there by myself, so instead of my usual two camera combo, I just brought one camera and one lens - the Nikon D600 and the Nikkor 24-70 2.8G.

In this post I will discuss how the combination performed in terms of:
- versatility
- image quality
- autofocus speed and accuracy
- low light performance (autofocus and image quality)
- dynamic range

(Click on the pictures for higher-resolution versions.  FYI no additional sharpening was used - only LR defaults.  All shots were handheld with no flash.  Except as otherwise noted, I did not apply noise reduction, clarity, vibrance or saturation.)
VERSATILITY
I was initially concerned that I didn't have a telephoto lens or ultrawide angle lens with me, but the Nikkor 24-70 2.8G covered many kinds of shots, from scene setters to close-up portraits.  To me, the 24mm had a similar feel to my Tokina 11-16 and the 70mm portraits felt tight enough to isolate the subject.

Traffic Jam.  24mm

36mm. Clarity +15

45mm

56mm

70mm

IMAGE QUALITY
For controlled shots, I found the images were sharp, even wide open at f/2.8.

The 24-70's bokeh is reasonably good in my opinion, though not in the same league as the Sigma 50 1.4:

The one thing that I was not impressed with was the amount of flare I was getting.  Please note that I did have a UV filter on (reviewed here), so I will look into this again in the future, without a UV filter.  UPDATE 10/12/12: I found that the rear element of my lens had a smudge in it.  I have since cleared the smudge, but I suspect the flare that I saw was from the smudge.  Will retest.

AUTOFOCUS SPEED AND ACCURACY
Consistent with previous tests, I found the D600's autofocus to be very good, speedily acquiring focus on active subjects.  Although the focus point was not always perfect, a high percentage of the shots had more than acceptable focus.  As expected, it was a lot easier to get good focus with an aperture of f/4.0 or f/5.6 than f/2.8.

I was surprised that the D600 and 24-70 were able to focus quickly enough to capture fast-moving subjects, even when I had no time to select the AF point.  The ride was at full speed in the shot below and IIRC the camera was on Auto Area AF with AF-C:

LOW LIGHT PERFORMANCE
Although we visited Disneyland in the daytime, we did drift into more dimly lit areas and it also got dimmer toward the end of the day.  On previous trips, I probably would have used flash under the same circumstances but on this occasion, I wanted to see what the Nikon D600 could do.  In my opinion, using high ISO in dim lighting is a more realistic test of a camera's high ISO performance than using a well-lit test scene.  (Note: The scenes below might look brighter than they actually were because I adjusted the contrast.)

From prior testing, I found that the D600's high ISO performance was exceptional for the viewing sizes that I normally use.  I therefore allowed the Auto ISO to choose any ISO, all the way up to 25600.  Sometimes, the camera would choose weird ISO settings like 8063.  Not sure why but it wasn't an issue for me.  Anyway, here are some high ISO samples.  No noise reduction used except as noted.

2800 ISO

8063 ISO

I can play too! 10,159 ISO

One thing that I like about the D600's high ISO is that it can still retain detail.  I prefer a noisier but more detailed image than one that has no noise but also no detail.  Another benefit of the D600 is that because of its high resolution, noise reduction is more effective if and when applied.

20,000 ISO. Noise reduction +30. Saturation -22.

25,600 ISO. Noise reduction +50. Clarity +31. Saturation -20.

I also want to note how well the D600's autofocus performed in these low light conditions.  The last couple of shots above were in a very dim room lit by a low-wattage incandescent bulb.  The last shot was at 25600 ISO, f/2.8, 1/80, or about an Exposure Value of 1.  It was dim enough that it was hard to see into the shadows with my naked eyes.  IIRC the AF assist did not activate because the AF point wasn't in the middle.  Even in such extreme circumstances the D600 and 24-70 focused with no hesitation at all.

DYNAMIC RANGE
One thing that I was looking for in the D600 was its dynamic range.  I have a Fuji S5, which I love, and I wanted a camera that would have a dynamic range that could match that of the S5.

When we visited Disneyland, the sun was blazing, providing a good opportunity to test the D600's dynamic range.  Here are some examples that amply demonstrate the D600's DR:

In this shot, Belle was wearing a satin-like glove which fell under direct sunlight.  Nonetheless, none of the details of the glove were lost.

This following scene was extremely backlit.  It was hard for me to see much more than silhouettes against the sun's glare.  It was the kind of scene that is the specialty of the S5.  The D600 performed just as well, retaining all details with the exception of specular highlights (note that the delicate diffuse highlights, such as the glossy surfaces of Dumbo were not blown out).

Now I have to come clean about a couple of things.  For these DR shots, the straight-out-of-the-camera didn't look like the final images that you see here.  Second, I had to adjust the automatic exposure of some of these shots.  You'll see what I mean when I post in more detail about the D600's dynamic range.  In the meantime, here are more samples.

MORE SAMPLES

Smile for daddy!

Read More

The Big Picture

We recently had a birthday party for our son. It was at a playhouse with large bounce houses and a play structure, with tall black ceilings (maybe about 30 feet high or so) and multicolored walls.

What lighting technique would you use in these circumstances? Hit the jump to see what approach I used.

When I'm indoors I prefer to use bounce flash because with proper technique, the light is soft and directional. In this situation however, I thought bouncing would be impractical because of the very high and dark ceiling. I didn't think bouncing off walls would be a good idea either because the multi-colored walls would create wildly inconsistent color casts on the subjects.

Without being able to bounce, I thought about other alternatives such as a handheld umbrella, the Fotodiox 8x12 softbox, or the Coco Ringflash. I first took a test shot using ambient only. At f/2.8 and ISO 1600 (what I consider to be a reasonable amount of noise for the D90 and to a certain extent, the D70), I was getting a shutter speed of around 1/80. I was surprised because I was expecting that the ambient would be too dim, with just some fluorescent lights overhead. At 1/80 however, I thought the shutter speed was usable, so that's what I used - ambient only (cue the thunder and lightning).

Sure, I often use flash because I believe it often improves the result, but I don't go out of my way to use it when I don't have to. I could have used the tools I mentioned (handheld umbrella, on-camera softbox or ringflash) but if I did, it would have been much harder to handle two cameras at the same time. And with only one camera, I would be compromising either my ability to capture moments (if I had to keep switching lenses) or my ability to compose (if I stuck to one lens). When the results of ambient only are fine, I didn't think it would be a good tradeoff.

A shot of me by my non-photographer wife:

Who knew that my wife would know to pan a shot and do it successfully? :-O

Part of what made it possible to get the shots above is that I was using fast f/2.8 lenses. The lenses I used here are the Tokina 11-16 (reviewed here) and the Nikon 24-70. See if you can guess which lens was mounted on the D90 and which was mounted on the 8-year old D70. :)

Speaking of lenses, I wanted to briefly mention my choice of focal length. I normally use a standard zoom (17-50 on APS-C or 24-70 on full frame) and a telephoto (50-150 on APS-C or 70-200 on full frame). However, I sold my Tamron 17-50 VC a couple of months ago after I got the D3 because I was using the 24-70 to cover the standard zoom, and then I recently sold my Nikon D3 in anticipation of the Nikon D600. I initially thought about using the Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 50-150 but I would be left with a large gap between 16-50 (24-75 in 35mm terms). Instead I paired the 11-16 with the 24-70, using the latter as a normal and short telephoto lens. I have a Nikkor 28-105 3.5-4.5 which I also considered because of its longer range but felt that I could use the wider aperture of the 24-70 in the somewhat dim light.

After the kids played, it was time to eat. The dining area was a medium-sized room, with light yellow ceilings about 10 feet high, and plain yellow walls. Unlike the play area, bouncing was definitely a good alternative here.

Some of you may know that I recently reviewed two bounce flash accessories - a modified Flashright and the "DIY Spinlight." Which one did I use here? Neither. The modified Flashright, DIY Spinlight, and even the black foamie thing are all useful for blocking the flash from directly reaching the subject when the flash is aimed forward to bounce it from a short-light direction. The short lighting looks cinematic and I love the effect.

However, in this case, I preferred a more even lighting, so I bounced the flash behind me or to the side, making it unnecessary to use the BFT or the other bounce accessories. Again, I choose the look I want then the tool to achieve it, not the other way around.

BTW note that for these shots in the dining area, I used a narrower aperture. First of all, a shallow depth of field would not be useful because the background was often plain yellow. The bokeh would not have been interesting. Second, by using a narrower aperture, I could more easily keep subjects in focus because of the deep depth of field.

As for color temperature, I took the shots in raw, which allowed me to neutralize the color, but I preferred the straight-off-the-camera white balance with a yellowish color cast because that's how the room looked to me. The neutralized white balance technically made the colors look "correct" but felt "weird" in the sense that I don't expect an absolutely neutral color under these circumstances (yellow walls, fluorescent lights).

The time came for blowing the candle on the cake. The playhouse staff dimmed the lights, which was perfect. To maintain the ambience, I set the ambient exposure so that the candles would appear to be the primary source of light. The fill was supplied by the dimmed ambient and bounced flash (dialed down so it wouldn't overpower the candlelight).

After that the kids had cupcakes and goody bags.

And then it was time to say good night.

Read More

Filters for Protecting Lenses: High-End vs. Budget vs. Dirt-Cheap

With digital photography, using filters to achieve special effects has become much less common, with the exception of neutral density filters, graduated ND filters, and circular polarizers.  The other exception, with some controversy, is the use of filters to protect lenses.  Typically, UV filters or sometimes skylight (warming) filters are used for this purpose.

In this post, we compare images from lenses without any filter, with a budget filter, and a high-end filter.  The filters I tested were:
(a) a high-end filter, the Hoya HD Hardened Glass 8-layer Multi-Coated Digital UV Filter, around $70 for 77mm.
(b) a budget filter, the Hoya skylight filter (standard version, not multi-coated), around $20 for 77mm.  Note: the skylight filter has a warming effect, so for purposes of this comparison, please take that into account as part of the filter design and not an inherent characteristic of budget filters.
I've also included a separate test for an ultra-cheap generic UV filter.

I tested the filters on two lenses:
(i) a flare-resistant lens, the Nikkor 24-70 2.8G on a Nikon D3; and
(ii) a lens that is [supposedly] susceptible to flare and ghosting, the Tokina 11-16 2.8 on a Fuji S5 Pro.
Both lenses use 77mm filters so I was able to use the same set of filters for the tests.

Hit the jump for the samples.
NIKKOR 24-70 2.8G
For the first lens to test, I chose the Nikkor 24-70 2.8G because it has a nano-crystal coat, which reduces ghosting and flare.  The 24-70 thus represents a lens that is flare-resistant.  I tested two angles: one where the sun was directly in the middle of the frame and another where the sun was at the corner of the frame.  I didn't use the lens hood.  The images were taken in raw, but I applied no processing, so these are SOOC, at full resolution.  You can view the slideshow below or click here for the web album instead (the images are also downloadable).


Observation: In the first set of images with the camera directly facing the sun, the most noticeable differences are in the area above the window of the shed.  In the second set, with the sun at the corner, the most significant differences are near the corner of the house nearest the small window on the middle/left.

TOKINA 11-16 2.8
For the second lens, I tested the Tokina 11-16 because it is a wide angle lens and is reputedly prone to ghosting and flare.  You can view the slideshow below or click here for the web album instead (the images are also downloadable).


Note: in the last shot, with the sun at the corner and the budget filter, the exposure was 1/3 stop higher (must have accidentally nudged it).  Please take that into account.

Observation: In the first set of images with the camera directly facing the sun, the most noticeable differences are in the area above near the window of the shed. In the second set, with the sun at the corner, the most significant differences are near the small window on the middle/left and the lower right corner of the frame.

COMMENTS:
Personally, I was somewhat surprised that there was not a bigger difference between the budget filter and the high-end filter.  Kudos to Hoya for producing a budget filter with relatively good quality.  Nonetheless, I would much prefer to use the HD filter.  If the lens isn't expensive enough to justify the cost of the HD filter, I may as well not use a filter and just rely on the lens hood.  [On the other hand, if you are the type to frequently go into dusty or gritty environments, I could see how having at least the budget filter (if not the HD filter) on all your lenses.]

As between the HD filter and having no filter, I think the difference is small enough that I would prefer to have the HD filter for my more expensive lenses (e.g. 24-70 and 70-200).  If those lenses got damaged it would really make my heart sink, so the very slight image degradation is an acceptable tradeoff in my view.

GENERIC FILTERS
Oh yeah I did mention those ultra cheap filters, didn't I?  Just because the Hoya standard filter wasn't too bad, doesn't mean that you'll get the same results if you get an ultra-cheap generic Made-in-China filter.  I have tried those in the past and those will definitely reduce the contrast in your image.  Here are a couple of comparisons (no pixel peeping required).  These were from a Nikon D80 and a Tamron 28-75.

no filter

crappy filter

no filter

crappy filter

In fact, the shots above were the moment I realized how noticeably a crappy filter can affect the image and I stopped using filters for protection from that point forward until I got the HD filter for the 24-70.

BUYING FILTERS
One more word of advice: there are plenty of fake high-end filters out there.  I strongly recommend buying from a reputable seller to make sure you're getting the filter that you're paying for.  If you find one that's on sale for a substantially lower price, I would think twice about buying it.
I bought my Hoya HD filter from Amazon.  If you would like to support this blog by buying from Amazon as well, just click on this link.  You can also help our blog by sharing links to our posts in social media (Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, etc.) or your website (if you have one).  Thank you for your support.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Lenstip.com and Optyczne.pl tested and compared several UV filters here:
http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html
http://www.lenstip.com/120.1-article-UV_filters_test_-_supplement.html (including the Hoya HD)

Read More