DPReview posts in-depth review of Nikon D600

DPReview has posted their in-depth review of the Nikon D600. Here is their review. I won't post a spoiler about their rating :).

I agree with almost everything they have said (except the grip - which they think is "comfortably deep," whereas in my view the D600's grip is not that great). For comparison, our review is here:

Part 1 is here http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/09/nikon-d600-hands-on-review-part-1.html

Part 2 is here http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/09/nikon-d600-hands-on-review-part-2.html

Part 3 TBA

If you've read our review, there aren't any surprises in the DPReview review. However, I did learn something new from DPReview's review:

"You can switch between storage cards and image folders but you'll have to hold the 'BKT' button while pressing the up arrow key on the multi selector; a more convoluted and much less discoverable approach than the single button-press operation on the D800. "

Check out their review and if you haven't done so yet, check out our review too (for an amateur photographer's perspective).

Read More

Update on Nikon D600 Sensor Oil/Dust Spots Issue

One of the few issues about the Nikon D600 is its propensity to get dust on its sensor.  It has been documented by Roger Cicala of LensRentals here.  In addition, some say the sensor gets oil (not just dust) on its sensor.  Roger did not notice any oil on the 20 units of the D600 that he examined, and I personally have not observed it.

Anyhow at around 2000 shots I noticed that there were spots on my shots, even at a not-so-narrow aperture of f/8.  I blogged about that here.  I thought the spots were oil based on the characteristics I observed but it turned out that the spots were only dust.

That was about a month ago.  I'm now at around 4500 shots, and although I haven't seen dust on my shots, I decided to reexamine the sensor.  Here's what I found.



I now have a lighted sensor loupe, so I took a look at the sensor.  To my relief, I did not see anything that looked like oil spots.  I only saw a few flecks of dust.  I blew them using a sensor cleaning blower but some of the spots remained.  I tried to take photos of the sensor but it was really challenging.  Here's what I was able to capture:

Other than that one spot, I couldn't see much.  (I was able to blow that one spot away using the sensor blower).

Meanwhile I decided I would take some narrow aperture test shots.  At first I took shots at f/22 and didn't notice anything.  I then changed to a Tamron 70-300 VC which can go to as narrow as f/32 then I took a shot:

In Lightroom, I maximized the contrast to make the dust spots easier to see.

Click for higher-resolution versions of the shots.  It's a lot dustier than what I could see from the sensor loupe, but I'm not very worried because they aren't showing up on my shots.

ACTUAL EXAMPLES OF OIL
Sometimes, dust exhibits the characteristics of oil (see here) therefore dust can be mistaken for oil.  The following are definite indicators of oil:

1. Visible oil on sensor.  See this photo:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=433703

2. Rings on test shots (dark outside, light inside).  If there is a ring but it is light outside and dark in the middle, the ring could just be a halo from excessive postprocessing (sharpening, clarity, contrast, etc.).
Example on D800 photo (scroll down):
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=5517&page=7
Photos of REAL oil spots - courtesy of Canon.

Link 1: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer?pageKeyCode=prdAdvDetail&docId=0901e0248013d2ea
Link 2: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/EOS_oil_spots.do

Note: the spots on my sensor don't seem to have donut-like rings like the ones shown on Canon's site.

3. If you physically attempt to wipe the dust and it smears.
WARNING: physical contact with the sensor or AA filter will void your Nikon warranty

11/16/12 UPDATE:  I just want to pose a question for readers: this issue about the D600 is very widely known.  And there is clear evidence of DUST.  However, even the issue about spots is very widely known and there's so much interest and discussion about it, why is it that there is still no unmistakable evidence of OIL (i.e. photos of actual oil spots on sensor/lowpass filter, or donut-shaped rings on photos, or smeared oil)?  There is evidence of oil on some other cameras (see examples) but I haven't seen any such evidence for the D600. Could it be that people are mistaking spots for oil?  Just something to think about.

RELATED POSTS:
Nikon D600 Resource Page (see under "Dust Spots")
Firefly DSC-2000 Review

Read More

Nikon D600 Live View WYSIWYG Workaround

The Nikon D600's Live View Photo mode is not WYSIWYG.  Changing the aperture, shutter speed and ISO while in Live View Photo mode will not show any changes to the Live View Photo display.  You won't see any change to the depth of field, blur, or noise.  Changes to exposure compensation show up only within a range of +/- 3EV (or -3 to +1EV when it's dark).  Many people would prefer WYSIWYG although one advantage of the non-WYSIWYG is that it's easier to work with when you are using flash and you are deleting the ambient light.

Anyhow, I found out that you can see the depth of field in Live View Photo mode.  The trick is to select the aperture before you activate live view.  If you do this, then the Live View image will show the actual depth of field for the chosen aperture.  A couple of notes:
- After Live View is activated, changing the aperture will not show any changes to the depth of field in the Live View display.)
- If you select a narrow aperture, it will be harder for the camera to focus.
- When I want to change the aperture and see the change in DOF, I change the aperture even while LV is active.  Then I just press the LV button once to deactivate it and press it again to activate it.  It's smoother to me than exiting LV, changing the aperture, and reactivating LV.

Read More

Story & Review: Canon 5D Mark II vs Canon 60D & Canon 6D

 
It's no secret that I switched from my beloved 60D to a 5D Mark II over 8 months ago, it's also no secret that I switched to a 5D Mark III a couple of months ago, in this post I tell you about the whole story, this is not only relevant to Canon users, but to anyone considering the switch from a crop sensor to a full frame. Click through to read the whole story.
 
It took a lot of effort to switch to full frame, I had a nice collection of lenses that satisfied me on my 60D, the 15-85, 55-250, 35 f2, 50 f1.8, 60 f2.8 macro, & 85 f1.8. In order to sell all of these lenses (except the 35 and 85 since they worked on FF), I made lots of calls, had to wait until I got the money, etc... before I was able to get the 5D Mark II, and I was completely hesitant at what lenses to get, the only thing I knew for sure was that I'd be getting the Canon 50 f1.4, then I decided to get the 5D with the kit lens (24-105 f4 in case you're wondering) because of its reputation and flexibility, later I bought the 200 f2.8 L, the 100 f2.8 L macro and the 40 f2.8 pancake.
 

 
The 5D Mark II lasted a mere 6 months in my posession, setting a record among my cameras for the shortest time of ownership. I waited a lot before buying the 5D for Canon's announcement of the 5D Mark III, then once I saw the price announcement, I decided it was out of my reach, and therefore my only FF chance was the Canon 5D Mark II.
 
It was a step-down from my 60D in a lot of ways:
 

• It had dated focusing compared to the 60D, center point focus was good, even for tracking, but outer focus points were not reliable in lower light conditions. The 60D had all cross type focus points.
• GUI is older than the 60D, changing button assignments was not as easy.
• Maximum burst rate was slower 4 fps vs 5.3 fps, and shutter sounded much better.
• Shutter is louder and the viewfinder blackout takes longer.
• No swivel screen.
• No lock for the mode dials.
• Stupid power button that confused me.
• Exposure meters and exposure compensation only goes to ±2 while the 60D goes to ±3.
• No 720p 50/60 fps for beautiful slow motion.
• Battery and memory card doors didn't have springs like the 60D.
• Heavier and larger.
• There was this weirdo issue with assigning the AF to the (*) button at the back, where I had to use the AE-L button to zoom out instead.
• 1/200 sync speed vs 1/250.
• Rubber smell from the grip stuck to my hand everytime I used the camera.
• No popup flash, and thus no triggering external speedlites.
• No electronic level.
• No in-camera RAW processing.

And despite all that, I fell in love with the 5D Mark II, if I may say, I felt like it had soul, everytime I held it, I felt like we understood each other very well. I never felt that way about any other camera, not even the 5D Mark III, it is very clever and everything, but it doesn't involve me in the taking pictures process like the mark 2.
 

 
Below are some of the benefits of the 5D Mark II over the 60D:
 

• Much larger sensor with better characteristics (less noise, better skin tones, shallower DoF for those who want it, better dynamic range, better tolerance to highlight and shadow recovery, etc...).
• Larger and brighter viewfinder (although same 97% coverage), you won't notice the difference clearly unless you use both side by side.
• More custom modes (3 vs 1).
• Auto brightness for the back LCD via a light sensor, can't tell you how useful this feature is, it makes a huge difference in usability.
• Magnesium alloy body, theoritcally stronger and weather proof. If you hold both, the 5D feels more robust and better built.
• Uses faster CF cards, although I hate the prices, I am impressed with the speed.
• The joystick is quicker and eaiser to use than the 8-way dial.
• Dedicated buttons for all the important functions, I was very happy with the WB button, on the 60D I had to set it to the "SET" button.
• At least one stop better noise performance, I used ISO 3200 all the time without hesitation.
• Excellent AWB, never failed me except under certain tungsten lighting where I had to change to custom WB (2500K).
• Skin tones and color tolerance, I can't stress how important this is, I shoot indoors a lot, usually a mix of ambient and bounce flash, in several situations shooting with the 60D didn't produce correct skin color, and I was not able to correct it in RAW, however in the same room with the same flash, the 5D gives me a better skin tone and color, I have no idea why, but things look real, accurate and pleasing.

Checkout the example below, taken with 50 f1.4, available light only, an ugly mix of tungsten and those new CFL lights that cast a green tint, AWB, didn't touch it in post, and it is one of my favorite pictures.

 

 
So why did I sell the 5D Mark II if it is that good? Image quality was the best I've ever had, a few reasons actually, the first and the major one was focusing, I got tired of trying to focus with the outer focus points in low light and not being able to, the mark 3 sounded attractive with 41 cross type AF points, and I only had one, ONE! Other reasons were not due to faults in the mark 2, but rather better, luring features in the mark 3, and missing some features from my 60D like the 720p 60 fps, but I will discuss this in future posts.
 

 
I did wait for the 6D announcement before I decided to jump the gun on the 5D Mark III, I was disappointed with the 6D's announcement for a lot of reasons, not mainly faults of the camera itself, but becuase the expectations were set quite high, and then there was the Nikon D600.
 
Rumors said the new FF will be an entry level, affordable camera, prices were expected to be around $1500, it was expected to have the same auto focusing system from the 7D (we're moving forwards in time, aren't we?), and we hoped it might have attractive features like a swivel screen or a popup flash that can act as a wireless trigger. Then Nikon announced the D600, $2099 full frame, 39 AF points with 9 cross types, 100% viewfinder, popup flash, weather sealing, 5.5 fps, dual memory cards which supports UHS, a small body and immediate availability.
 
Now imagine Canon announcing the 6D a little bit later, asking for $2099 and giving you 11 AF points with ONE cross type, 97% viewfinder, no popup flash, no swivel screen, 4.5 fps, a single SD card, and availability in 4 months. Expectations were really high, and it was a major letdown, especially after Nikon's excellent foray with the D600. Add to that a couple of omissions compared to the 5D Mark II, like the 1/4000 shutter speed and lack of a joystick, and you can see why I quickly went for the 5D Mark III instead.
 

 
So does this make the 6D a bad camera? Of course not. Is it as good as Nikon's D600? In my opinion, of course not, I believe if I was just entering the FF world with no investment in lenses or flashes, I would definitely choose the Nikon (provided they solve the oil/dust issues) unless it turns out that Canon's 20 MP sensor produces some legndary image quality, which I doubt it will given that it would not be able to match the 1DX's 18 MP FF sensor's quality.
 
"But I have Canon lenses and/or want to buy a Canon FF, shall I buy the 5D Mark II or wait for the 6D?" I hear you asking. Given the current prices of the 5D Mark II, I find that it's a real bargain, I'd pick one if I need the money. I see the benefits of the 6D over the older 5D Mark II are the probably better sensor, more sensitive center focus point, smaller size, weight, 720p 60fps video, built-in WiFi and GPS. If you see that you need any of these features then you know where to look.
 
But if you don't need all of this, you can save yourself time and money (enough to get you a nice prime lens), and get one of the 5D Mark IIs before they go extinct. You'd have the advantages of the 1/8000 shutter speed, 1/200 sync speed, joystick, faster CF card, auto LCD brightness sensor and that's probably it.
 

 
I have no doubt the 6D will sell like hot cakes, especially after the 5D Mark II disappears, and the prices for the 6D get lower, this would be the most affordable Canon FF camera, what I really hope for is that the 6D's sensor shows significant image quality gains and that the focusing system turns out to be much better than its older sister. I hope I can find someone with a 6D to review.
 
Now that I finally got this out of my system, it's time to start talking about the 5D Mark III, it is a phenomenal cameras, soul-less (until now, that is) but phenomenal. It is similar to the McLaren MP4-12C, a brilliant car, but reviewers say that it's like a fax machine, no soul, unlike the Ferrari 458 Italia for exapmle, but the 5D Mark II is no 458 Italia, maybe it's an F355. Below are a few more examples taken with the 5D Mark II before it got sold.
 
 
RELATED POSTS
 
Canon 5D Mark II - First Impressions
FAQ: Full Frame DSLR
 

 

Posted with Blogsy

Read More

Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC pricing and availability; aims at 70-200 f/4 rivals

NikonRumors reports that pricing for the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC has been announced at $1499 (from B&H Photo Video), shipping on Nov. 30. I think the price was designed to aim at the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS ($1349) and the recently-announced Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR ($1399 + $199 for tripod collar) So what Tamron is saying is that for about the same price, you could get a lens that is a full stop faster.

Of course the question is whether the 70-200 2.8 VC has comparable image quality at f/4 and has at least a usable image quality at f/2.8. Many photographers who shoot only with first-party lenses may be skeptical of that. As for me, I don't mind using 3rd party lenses (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) and I haven't seen shots from the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC but it's possible.

I had the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and it was one of my sharpest lenses, even at 2.8 (reviewed here). According to DXO, it outperforms the much more expensive Nikon 17-55 2.8 (which doesn't even have stabilization).

I also have an upcoming review for the Tamron 70-300 VC. I haven't shot enough with the 70-300 VC yet, but so far it looks quite good. And if you look around for reviews on it, you'll see that it is at least equal to if not slightly better than the Nikon 70-300 VR. Of course there are also Tamron lenses that are not very good compared to their Canon or Nikon equivalents. But my point is, it's at least possible that the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC may meet or exceed the image quality of the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR or Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. I will be looking forward to reviews of the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC.

UPDATE:
Roger Cicala tests the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC (Canon mount) and the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/quick-resolution-tests-on-two-new-70-200s


Review of the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC for Canon
http://www.photonews.ca/?p=5849

Read More

Differences Between Nikon D5200 vs. D5100, D7000 and D90

The Nikon D5200 was officially announced in Europe and is expected to be announced in the US in January.  Here is a list of key differences between the D5200, D5100 and D7000.

UPDATE: DPReview preview here

First, here are the key differences between the D5200 and D5100 (we'll talk about the differences with the D7000 later).

• SENSOR: The D5200 has a 24mp sensor, which many commentators believe is the same sensor as that of the D3200.  If so, expect the DXO scores to be similar, in which case, the D5100 (which has the same sensor as the D7000) would have slightly better high ISO.  D3200 DXO score.  D5100 DXO Score. D7000 DXO score.  UPDATE: DPReview states that Nikon denies that the D5200 sensor is the same as that of the D3200.  We'll see.
• Updated! AUTO ISO:  DPReview reports that the D5200 has the new, smarter Auto ISO (just like the D4, D800 and D600) that can take into account the focal length.  On the D600 I have found this incredibly useful, and for me it is a bona fide killer feature.
• AUTOFOCUS: The D5200 has the same 39-point autofocus module as the D7000.  The D5100 has only 11 AF points.
• METERING: The D5200 has the same 2016-pixel matrix metering as the D7000.  The D5100 uses the older 420-pixel matrix metering used in cameras such as the D90.
• CONTINUOUS SHOOTING: The D5200 can shoot at 5 fps, whereas the D5100 shoots at up to 4 fps.
• VIDEO:  The D5200 can shoot at 1080i/60fps or 1080p/30fps with a built-in stereo microphone.  The D5100 can shoot at up to 1080p/30fps and the built-in mic is mono.
• WIRELESS SUPPORT:  The D5200 is compatible with the WU-1a wireless adapter, just like the D3200, and similar to the WU-1b for the D600 (reviewed here).  The WU-1a enables remote live view and wireless transmission of photos to your smartphone (for sharing on Facebook or Twitter, etc.).  The D5100 does not have support for the WU-1a or WU-1b.
• The D5200 has a newer and arguably nicer graphical interface than the D5100.
• The D5200 is available in black, red and bronze.  The D5100 comes only in black.

 As between the D5200 and D7000, the differences are similar to the differences between the D5100 and D7000:

• Sensor: see above
• The D7000 has AF Fine Tuning (Micro AF adjust).  The brochure for the D5200 makes no mention of such a feature and the D5200 is not expected to have it.
• D5200 has only one command dial.  D7000 has two.
• D5200 doesn't have direct access buttons for ISO, White balance or file quality (JPEG, RAW, etc.).  You need to go through the menus to change those settings.
• D5200 has only one memory card slot.  D7000 has two (the second can be used as backup or overflow or for video).
• 95% viewfinder vs. 100% viewfinder
• 1/200 sync speed vs 1/250 or 1/320 sync speed
• highest shutter speed: 1/4000 vs. 1/8000.
• D5200 doesn't have a commander mode
• D5200 can't do HSS.
• D5200 has no built-in AF motor.  Some older lenses will not autofocus on the D5200 (although there may be focus confirmation through the electronic rangefinder).
• 5fps vs. 6fps continuous shooting
• 16 scene modes vs. 20 scene modes
• These are the D5200's advantages over the D7000:
• Smarter Auto ISO.
• Support for WU-1a allows remote live view.
• Swivel/tilt LCD screen.  Can be used for unusual angles or for self-portraits.
• D5200 can do 1080p at 30fps or 1080i at 60fps.  D7000 can only do 1080p at 24fps.

You might also be comparing the D5200 to a used Nikon D90, or possibly switching from one.  Here are the differences:

• D5200 has only one command dial.  D90 has two.
• D5200 doesn't have direct access buttons for ISO, White balance or file quality (JPEG, RAW, etc.).  You need to go through the menus to change those settings.
• D5200 doesn't have a popup commander mode.
• D5200 can't do HSS.
• D5200 has no built-in AF motor.  Some older lenses will not autofocus on the D5200 (although there may be focus confirmation through the electronic rangefinder).

Here are the D5200's advantages over the D90:

• Smarter Auto ISO.
• Sensor: The D90 has an older 12mp sensor.  The D5200's sensor is not only higher resolution (24mp) but is expected to have better high ISO performance and dynamic range.
• Swivel/tilt screen.
• Autofocus: 39 point vs. 11 point.
• Metering: 2016pixel vs. 420pixel matrix.
• Video: the D90 can only do 720p at 24fps.  Plus the D5200 has continuous autofocus in movie mode whereas the D90 does not.  The D5200 also has an external microphone jack whereas the D90 doesn't.
• Live view autofocus: the D5200's live view autofocus is expected to be much better than the slow-as-molasses autofocus of the D90's live view.
• 5fps vs. 4.5fps continuous shooting
• 16 scene modes vs. 5 scene modes
• Support for WU-1a wireless module.

Unknowns: the D5100 had the ability to take 2 shots and combine them as an HDR.  That feature is not mentioned in the D5200 brochure though it is likely to have it.  Another question is whether the D5200's auto ISO is the smarter type (just like the D4, D800 and D600) that can take into account the focal length.  That's a very useful feature if the D5200 has it (a killer feature in my opinion).  Another potentially useful feature IF present would the ability to specify whether exposure compensation affects flash exposure (just like the D4 and D600).  The D7000 and D90 do not have any of these features.

Pricing: The D5100 is currently being offered refurbished on ebay for as low as $400 (body only).  US Pricing for the D5200 has not yet been announced at the time of this writing.

RELATED POSTS:

Comparison between D5100 and D7000

Comparison between D7000 and D300S

Read More

[Why] Does My Popup Commander Contribute to the Exposure?

One of my favorite features in DSLRs that have it is the popup commander where the popup flash is able to act as wireless commander for off-camera slave flashes.  In this regard, sometimes I see the question, "Does my popup commander affect my exposure?" or "Why does my popup commander affect my exposure even when it is set to inactive?"  The short answers are: yes, even when the popup commander is supposedly inactive, it will contribute to the exposure.  Secondly, that is absolutely normal - there is nothing wrong with your camera.  Below are quick test shots showing that the popup commander does contribute to the exposure.



Here is a test shot at 800 ISO, f/2.8, 1/200, where the slave in Group A was set to TTL at 0 FEC, while the popup flash was set to "--":

You can see that the shadows are not totally black.  The shadows are being illuminated by the popup flash.

Here is the same shot, but this time I used the SG-3IR infrared panel to block the popup flash:

This time you can see that the shadows are black.  Note also the difference in exposure on the mannequin head itself.

The popup flash's contribution is less noticeable when you use lower ISOs and/or narrower apertures.  Here is another pair of test shots, at 400 ISO, f/2.8.
Without SG-3IR:


With SG-3IR:


Here is yet another pair, another stop darker exposure at 400 ISO, f/4 (the TTL compensates so the flash exposure is the same).
Without SG-3IR:

With SG-3IR:


The popup flash's contribution is much less noticeable but is there nonetheless.  Here is the same exposure (ISO 400, f/4) but with the slave flashes intentionally disabled.


Without SG-3IR:

With SG-3IR:


With some subjects that have specular (shiny, mirror-like) surfaces, the popup flash's contribution is even more noticeable, as you can see from the gym bag beside the mannequin head.

As shown above, one solution is to use an SG-3IR infrared panel or similar 3rd party product to block the popup flash.  Another trick is to use high speed sync.  With Nikon, the popup commander can command the slave flashes above the sync speed but the popup flash will not contribute to the exposure.  The downside is that you will lose at least 2 stops of power.

Note: for Canon shooters, the Aokatec panel is designed to be compatible with your hotshoe.

RELATED POSTS:
SG-3IR Infrared Panel Review
Cheap Wireless TTL? Aokatec AK-TTL Review
ND Filter vs. High Speed Sync

Read More