The Online Photographer

The Nikon D700: The New 400

You digital people are so lucky. And what do I mean by "digital people"? Michael Reichmann mentioned, in the course of his new Panasonic G1 review, that he encounters photographers these days who never shot film. So do I. It's an amazing if inevitable development in the hobby. Anyway, I often don't think you digital people have any idea how lucky you are.

I've been mulling over a number of things these days. First, I've been mulling over my final thoughts on the Pentax K20D. And I've been mulling over some holistic thoughts about camera development, which is proceeding interestingly as usual. And some thoughts about B&W.

Meanwhile, "camera testing weather" is just about over here in Wisconsin. We had a lovely snowfall this afternoon—great cottony clumps of flakes drifting down from the sky, some seemingly an inch in diameter. Naturally, a picture doesn't do it justice, but just as naturally that didn't stop me from trying:

You should have seen these things. Seriously, I don't think I've ever seen bigger snowflakes. Maybe as big, but not bigger. Not quite the size of canned hams.

Ultimately, I suspect the image quality (IQ) of the K20D is better than that of the Nikon D700, as I shall try to demonstrate in due course. The Pentax has somewhat higher resolution and better detail; it has slightly tastier, richer color than I've so far eked out of the Nikon. But that's only if you're able to use the K20D within its limitations—meaning, at normal sensitivities. That's a big "if," turns out. Where the D700 just obliterates the K20D—and every other digital camera I've ever used, save the D3—is at high ISO's.

The higher, the more better.

I use the K20D about like I use my old Konica-Minolta 7D: freely up to ISO 800, and 1600 when needed, tolerating an acceptable but obvious IQ hit. Those speeds seem luxurious to me. They cover most picture-taking situations easily. They're no hardship, certainly, for someone who grew up on film.

I was able to shoot the snowflake picture at 1/800th sec. at a middle aperture of ƒ/5.6, which is pretty good. IQ is good, too: the D700 is even picking up the snowflakes against the gray sky. I think you can see that even in the online JPEG if you click on the picture to see the larger version. Can you see that? I can see it easily in the full file. I don't know, but I don't think I ever saw film do that under similar conditions.

Even on screen, you have to magnify D700 files considerably to see noise at many sensitivities. What I noticed was that at many speeds, you see pixels before you see noise.

Pixels show up at a definite screen size: at 100% they're not obvious, and at 200% they are.

Which got me to thinking. (It's always dangerous when I try to do that.) Examining D700 files on the monitor at 100%, you cannot see noise at, say, ISO 400. I did some shots at ISO 5000, and at 100% you can clearly see the noise in those. Hmm (cogs turning): What that means is that there's some speed that's the highest speed at which you'll see pixels onscreen before you see noise onscreen. (Does this have any practical meaning? I honestly don't know. The weather's bad, and I'm just dorking around today. Dump-de-dum-dum.) So, just for fun, I went looking for what that speed is.

I did speed-brackets of a number of shots. I think this hits the magic number:

The knives always fall into the disposal. Oh, and sorry about these dreadful "just a test shot" pictures. I suppose we all do that, right? Especially at this time of year, here, with wet snow falling under leaden skies. There's no good light anywhere. Hey, at least I didn't show you the self-portrait I took in the bathroom mirror, so maybe you're luckier than you think.

Anyway, I can sort of see noise—barely—in this picture at 100%. Here's a screen shot from ACR, which you should be seeing at 100% after you click on it to enlarge it:

I think you're seeing just a little noise in this. Kind of hard to tell. There seems to be a little color in that stainless steel that's not stainless-steel color. Bear in mind this is raw straight out of the camera, with no sharpening and no noise reduction. And this is worst-case—in other test shots, the noise is even less obvious.

So what was it shot at? 3200. (<—incredulous voice.)

Pleased as punch
You have to put this in per-spec-tive. I remember when I was young and I'd talk to old guys who'd say things like, "You don't know how lucky you are, having ASA-64-speed Kodachrome. In my day, the speed of Kodachrome was 12!" Well, I'm dating myself, but what the hell, it's my turn to be the old guy: I still remember the days when 400-speed color neg films got decent. Late '80s, early '90s, that was, after Fuji came along and lit a fire under Kodak's corporate butt and the two giants started competing. At that time, I feel confident in saying, we would have been pleased as punch with performance as good as the above from 35mm 400-speed film.

The D700 is achieving quality at least as good with three stops less light.

There's nothing magical about the D700's IQ at normal speeds. It's perfectly good, but I'm reasonably certain you could get IQ as good from any other 12-MP camera if you used them both optimally. (Even some digicams, if the SBR—subject brightness range—isn't too great for the wee sensor.)

But the higher the ISO, the more the D700 will pull away from what you're used to.   

Now go back to the snowflake picture. Despite the dark day, I was able to shoot at 1/800th sec. at ƒ/5.6 by shooting at ISO 2500. Dump-de-dum.

The 7D and K20D would both be well into "we give up" territory at ISO 2500, image-quality-wise. The D700 is just reaching cruising speed. You probably wouldn't do this, but I honestly think that if you wanted to, you could use 2500 as your normal, everyday setting with this camera. For everything.

3200. It's the new 400. And some of you probably just don't realize how amazing that is.

_____________________

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Boogie on, online shoppers:
Amazon U.S. link
Amazon U.K. link
Amazon Germany link
Amazon Canada link
B&H Photo link
Adorama Camera link

Featured Comment from Andy Munro (UK): "Mike, The D700 and D3 have hit a real sweet spot for me (Wedding Photographer). I am amazed (actually continually amazed every shoot) to see detail where there used to be an orangey black mush. Now not only is the noise held in check, the colour is there...fabulous. I just hope they don't chase pixels and lose this 'black cat in a coal cellar' ability."

Featured Comment by Joe Sawicki: "Having done photography in both ages, I really get a kick out of seeing the comments about Camera X or Y where someone insists that the inability to capture at ISO (insert absurd number here) noise free, makes the camera completely unacceptable. Hey, I'm an engineer (can't spell geek without an EE), and I get the appeal of specsmanship, but digital SLRs are years past the point of being unacceptable."

Beast of Burden Beware

The comments in the "Carrying Style" post, below, came in about like I expected—a few pros shaking their heads over what amateurs consider "heavy" (photographers are beasts of burden, and some pros do schlep far more equipment than many readers might realize—see my favorite picture of a photographer here, and if you have any idea how to get in touch with the guy who took that—the mysterious and elusive "S Smith"—please—seriously—let me know)—and, of course, several people thoughtfully addressed the potentially serious health issues that can result.

Work-related injury is serious stuff. I remember a blacksmith I knew in Vermont who had such serious back problems that it could take him twenty minutes to stand upright again after shoeing a horse. He was a deeply traditional Newt (i.e., native Vermonter), but he practiced yoga every day—because it was good for his back.

Not all photographers develop physical problems as a result of carrying heavy equipment awkwardly for too many years, but many do. Personally, I developed a sensitivity in my neck that at one point seemed like it might be permanent, although it's gotten better in recent years. Before the UpStrap came along, I also had a distinct case of "shoulder hunch" that another commenter mentioned—the tendency to hold one shoulder higher in order to keep a camera strap from slipping off of it. As a result, I've become almost fanatical about lightweight equipment, and about carrying methods. That's not just preference—it's a health issue.

Gunslinger
From this picture on the cover of my book Lenses and the Light-Tight Box (I can't find the picture file, and note that the book is no longer available), you can see my all-time favorite camera setup: An Olympus OM-4T with a Zuiko 40mm ƒ/2, and a Contax strap with a contoured shoulder pad. Note the spring clips on the strap: when I was concentrating on shooting, I'd unclip the strap and stick it under my belt so it was out of the way, and hold the camera in my hand. The large rings were for getting the strap back on quickly: I could just stick the whole spring clip through the ring and pull back on it. No fumbling.

Obviously this is a long way from a pro setup, but I "wore" the camera every day—put it on in the morning, and took it off at night, like my shirt (in imitation of David Vestal). So it had to be comfortable and light when it was on my shoulder.

I really liked those Contax straps—I bought five of them and still have a couple. Now, however, I'd choose the UpStrap RF, the UpStrap with the smaller shoulder pad. I can't say if the UpStrap is the best strap if you carry your camera around your neck—maybe an OpTech would be better in that case—but years of carrying too much equipment around my neck, as I say, has left me unable to carry cameras that way. I can't carry any camera around my neck for any length of time without pain. For carrying a camera slung from one shoulder, the UpStrap RF is far and away the best I've ever used—it stays up there admirably; you just don't have to worry about it.

I always thought that the best "camera strap" would be a simple setup similar to suspenders. They'd attach to your belt or pants in back and in front, just like suspenders, but they'd have extra straps sewn on each side at about shoulder level that held the camera. This would put the weight of the camera equally on both shoulders but keep it entirely off your neck. I've never tried it, though, so maybe it wouldn't work all that well—maybe the weight of the camera pulling up on your pants in the back would give you a permanent wedgie. I'm not the guy to make it into a product in any case (I just get ideas, I don't act on them).

As for carrying tons of equipment around, I'm just not that kind of photographer. It's not always a disadvantage. Some people carry lots of equipment so as to be ready for anything, and this helps them get certain pictures. But traveling light and staying unobtrusive can also help you get certain pictures, ones you might not be able to get if you advertised "photographer approaching" from a distance.

Burdens
But back to the subject—newer and younger photographers would be well advised to consider this issue carefully. Carrying a heavy camera bag or several cameras draped around your neck might seem easy enough when you're young and strong, but burdening your body with awkward and uneven weights on a regular basis can do orthopedic damage over the long run. Beware.

____________________

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Do your seasonal shopping online through our links:
Amazon U.S. link
Amazon U.K. link
Amazon Germany link
Amazon Canada link
B&H Photo link
Adorama Camera link 

Featured Comment by Janne: "The extreme fascination with 'pro' equipment among photography hobbyists sort of irks me. Not only does it propagate the idea that it's the equipment more than the users' skill that makes a good picture; it leads people to actually get worse equipment than they could have.

"My workplace has had some media attention the last couple of years, and we've had a steady stream of photographers and video people come by. One thing it has hit home is that professional photographers do not need better gear than amateurs, they need different gear. As far as I have seen, the equipment they use is made to last long enough so it can be deducted; it is easily serviceable or replaceable at a moments notice (no oddball choices); or it can be rented at a gear rental shops around the world. Size and weight, and purchase cost, just about never comes into it.

"We had one arts photographer come in to do a quick shoot. He was traveling light and brought only one camera, a Mamiya 7. For all that, he still had two or three bags full of stuff, including a strobe and power pack and a big, sturdy tripod that the camera never left. No problem for him because 'traveling light' still meant traveling with an assistant who could be counted on to pack and unpack, carry stuff, check reservations and so on.

"But we amateurs don't have assistants and we are often not primarily photographing so our gear really does need to be very small and light. And as 'small and light' usually means no tripod for us it means amateur gear needs to work well handheld, unlike pro gear which will normally live on a tripod. The extreme case is digital MF. There is no amateur market for it, not because of the cost (how much does a motorcycle, or RV, or golf club membership set you back?), but because it is so obviously unsuitable for amateur use. Digital backs assume you're shooting tethered and can use a dedicated computer with their own, expensive, software on it, so no stabilizer, no high-iso performance, lousy handholdability. But other pro gear is similarly unsuitable for amateurs, it's just not as blindingly obvious."

Featured Comment by Stevierose: "I have to say that I am in total agreement about being conscious of maintaining good camera carrying ergonomics (I mean, I have actually had cervical spine fusion surgery), but I think that, for me, the problem is more the camera than the strap. The problem, as I see it, is: so far there is no digital equivalent of an Olympus OM4t and 40mm lens pictured on Mike's book cover. This combination is: light, rugged, very well thought out (the highlight and shadow spot metering function is brilliant), has good optics, and (here is the kicker) it has a big, clear, beautiful viewfinder with interchangeable screens. I can carry an OM4t around all day on any kind of strap.

"I have purchased a number of DSLR cameras in the hopes that they were even sort of close to this kind of outfit, and, I'm telling you, they ain't out there. My latest foray in this direction was the Olympus e420/25mm prime outfit. But the viewfinder is a tiny little tunnel compared to the OM4t, it is nowhere near as intuitive a photo maker, and the lens is no great shakes. It is small and you can carry it all day. The new Panasonic G1 is being heralded as the inheritor of this tradition, but it has an EVF (albeit improved). Pentax makes excellent prime lenses and fairly intuitive camera bodies, but they are pretty heavy in my hands. So, I am still waiting. And, even though I am way into digital now, I can't bring myself to sell my old Olympus 4t."

Ah, That's Better

Out my front door about an hour ago, with the Nikon D700 and 35mm ƒ/2 (which just got here).

____________________

Mike  (Thanks to Carl Weese for the lens loan)

Nikon D3X is Here

I don't even know if I should bother to mention this, since you've probably seen it elsewhere by now, but the D3X was leaked today. Ironically, it was a blogger, Seb Rogers, who broke the news.

Now a lot of Nikonophiles are going to see just how good the A900 is.... :-)

By the bye, since the story broke, nikonrumors has been intermittently down, and apparently almost all of Nikon's European sites were down yesterday.

____________________

Mike

It's Our Birthday

Today is significant in a number of ways. It's leftovers-day in the U.S.; it's so-called "Black (?) Friday," allegedly the #1 retail shopping day of the year but actually not—generally it ranks 5th or 6th or so, most of the days in the week right before Christmas beating it; and it's the official start of Christmas-Music Season, an annual blight upon my existence. I don't know why retailers think playing Christmas music nonstop will put anyone in the mood to part with cash, unless they simply want to drive them mercilessly to finish up, pay, and leave, vacating the aisles for the next throng. It's not that I have anything against Christmas music, in principle; it's just that I prefer to listen to it sparingly, when I choose to. I won't go into a Menards because of that horrible jingle they inflict upon their customers at water-torture intervals, and I have gotten so leery of the gratuitous assault of Christmas music that venturing into chain stores over the next month takes on the character of high-stepping through a minefield, not that I should make light of minefields, a tragic problem in many parts of the world. Anyway, I even stay out of bookstores in December, and it takes a lot to keep me out of bookstores.

Oh, and today is our birthday—we are three. The Online Photographer first booted up on November 28th, 2005. This is the 2,242nd post since then, and we have averaged just about 10 comments per post over that time and received some 13,054,835 visits not counting today's.

All that, and we're apparently not done yet.

Cheers,

Mike

Featured Comment by Dave Kee: "Congrats! I haven't read all 2,242 posts yet, but I am up to May, 2008. I can't wait to find out who our new president will be."

Nikon 24-120mm Review

On Thanksgiving I completed a block of shooting with the D700 and a lens that is officially called the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24–120mm ƒ/3.5–5.6G IF-ED, and I must say I am impressed. Although not in a good way. In fact, I am even somewhat excited.

For a number of years I made a sort of side-hobby of appreciating camera lenses. ("Appreciating"...sure, let's say it that way.) I took an interest in learning how to see various aberrations, learning to explore how various lenses behave, learning how to accept the "gifts"—pictures, I mean—of good lenses, learning how to work around the inevitable weaknesses of others.

But in recent years, a sort of pall has been cast over my little personal hobby. First there was computerized design. That sort of sucked the eccentricity out of old and odd designs, raising the standard across the board and bleaching certain lenses of their formerly particularized character. Then came sophisticated, modernized methods of quality control: this went impressively far towards removing sample variation as a significant element of lens choice and tended to "bunch" all lenses near the top of the performance band. Then came good digital sensors, which make it possible to make certain corrections (at least superficially, which to the eye is nearly as good as actually) in software, as opposed to being integral to the lens. Along the way came modern materials science, which substituted low-cost, lighter materials for previously high-cost, harder-to-work, heavier materials, with not only little detriment in actual performance but actually, in some cases, improvements. Lastly there was Chinese and other low-cost, high-value loci of manufacture, which made sophisticated products marketable at ever-lower prices of admission.

All good things, to be sure. But the result has been a sort of gradual subsiding of my enthusiasm for lenses. The bottom line was that in recent years all lenses had become pretty good, and some rather ordinary lenses had become really good. Zooms, formerly "guilty until proven innocent," had become quite good in many cases—in a few cases achieving really impressive heights; even some "budget" kit zooms were quite competent, with minimal weaknesses that in many cases were easy enough to identify and work around. Furthermore, my own taste in lenses began to become highly particularized and somewhat oddball, without much conformance to universally accepted norms of performance that everybody could understand. And I began to wonder if perhaps there was much point any more in seeking out really good lenses.

The coup de grace seemed to come in 2006, when I bought a used Konica-Minolta 7D that came with a modest zoom lens—a lens in which I initially had zero interest. The lens was branded as a Minolta, but in fact it was designed by Tamron and made at Tamron's facility in China. It was light, small, fast, and reasonably priced. Here was a lens that all my experience told me would be sub-par; and yet it was not only good, it was very good, at least on that particular camera with that particular (reduced-size) sensor. I had intended to get rid of it right away, but I've been using it ever since.

A couple of random samples from the quite fine Tamron 28–75mm ƒ/2.8—the lower one one of my experiments in desaturation.

It might seem odd for a self-described lens nut to be complaining that lenses are getting too good, but let's face it: a world in which all lenses were technically perfect—clinical, synthetic, characterless—would be a more boring world.

I even used a "premium" prime (fixed-focal-length) lens recently that was decidedly old-fashioned in that it showed clear enough evidence of a number of traditional wide-angle weaknesses: the Zeiss ZK/ZF 28mm ƒ/2. That lens shows mild but noticeable amounts of traditional wide-angle distortion, has a clear tendency to favor the center over the corners, and has a rather extreme amount of curvature of field. And yet, for all that, it is still a highly pleasing lens, in a subjective sort of way: it has superb contrast, excellent resistance to flare, and excellent color transmission. The pictures it makes are quite nice, characterful but rich-looking. Although I've learned that the curvature of field is bothersome to some users, I still don't think it's a poor lens.

POS
So then along comes the VR Zoom-Nikkor 24–120mm, sent to me by Nikon USA to review with the D700. This is a lens of thoroughly modern specification, ranging from ultra-wide-angle to quite far into the telephoto range. It's reasonably fast, and impressively small. It has vibration-reduction (a.k.a. IS). It's quite inexpensive for all that. It looks the business. It's a Nikkor. And if all lenses are indeed "good enough" these days, then how bad could it be?

Well, here's the thing: it's a piece of shit. Granted, I was shooting in very low light, at apertures that will "stress" even good lenses. But despite its fancy specs, this is for all intents and purposes a perfect throwback to the days when even good zooms couldn't aspire to the performance of ordinary garden-variety primes. Its performance is for all the world like an early-'80s mid-level zoom—smack dab in the middle of the era in which zooms earned—and deserved—their still-lingering bad reputation. It has flagrant amounts of linear distortion not only at its wide setting but well into the middle range, and apparent perspective distortion even near the middle of the frame(!). The D700 could hardly focus the thing—I got more out-of-focus shots than I have with any AF lens in years—yet even so, the situation hardly improves when it does manage to execute this basic operation and get the subject in focus, because its sharpness is lackluster. At 120mm, I don't think the thing gets sharp. At least, not without stopping down further than I was able to. The deterioration in performance toward the corners is often marked—and not just at the extreme corners, either. Color transmission borders on sucky (I know this from having recently used the 24–70mm ƒ/2.8 on the D3).

Whoops! I haven't seen distortion this bad in many a moon. Understandable for a cheap zoom at its extreme wide setting of 24mm, you say? Perhaps, except this was at 55mm!! Ouch!!!

I let my friend Witold use the D700 for a while, and he put one of his Nikkor lenses from his D60 on it. The D700 still had trouble focusing in the very low light, but when I click through my pictures it is immediately obvious when the lens switch occurs, because the optical quality of the results takes a jump upwards.

In brief, for a full-frame 24–120mm lens, this is a decent 35–105mm APS-C lens.

There are a few good things about it, a few things it does better than an early-'80s zoom, besides being smaller and with a much better range. But so what? It might even fool some less experienced photographers into thinking it's okay. But that's no excuse. This is a very inexpensive lens that is not worth half of what it costs. If you innocently purchased one of these and are not lucky enough to be using it on a DX sensor, try to get your money back if you possibly can. Otherwise, stop down and avoid the extremes of the zoom range, even though they're probably why you bought the thing in the first place. For my part, I will strongly suggest to my contact at Nikon that this is not an appropriate lens to send out with the D700 for review. Every dollar Nikon makes on this thing will sap three dollars' worth out of the company's hard-earned reputation for optical excellence. And I will shoot not so much as one more frame with this Coke-bottle-bottom—it goes back in its box today. Now. Even though that will sideline the D700 for two or three days. The D700 deserves more of a fair shake than this lens will allow.

The Nikon VR 24–120mm: take a pass on this one.

Oh, and one more thing: the VR doesn't even work very well. It works, but it's the least effective image stabilizing I've yet experienced.

Buying advice? Oh yes. Tempted though ye may be by its specs and handy size, give this one a pass.

Reason still to be a connoisseur
And yet, I'm sort of pleased all the same. Lenses are getting really good in general, it's true. And there is perhaps less reason than ever before to spend excessive amounts of money on lenses that are deliberately designed and made to be fine...more's the pity. But not all lenses are "good enough"—there are still some real, honest-to-gawd dogs out there.

I'm weird, I know, but I find that reassuring.

___________________

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Happy Thanksgiving

A very small Thanksgiving poem:

-

Eat and be grateful
For every plateful.

Best regards,

TOP's massive editorial staff (urp)

Random Excellence: Casper Hedberg

Casper Hedberg, From the story "Violence in Kenya," via VervePhoto.

Born in 1983, Casper Hedberg grew up in a small village in the southern part of Sweden. By the age of 14 he took a darkroom class and got hooked on photography. Casper's professional career started in 2005 when he began working as a full time photographer. A year later he got his Bachelor of Photojournalism at Mid Sweden University in Sundsvall. Today he lives in Stockholm and does assignments for major Swedish newspapers and magazines both in Sweden and abroad. Most of all Casper enjoys reporting about social issues around the world.

_________________________

Mike (Thanks t0 Charlie Didrickson)

Send this post to a friend

Help support T.O.P.!
Amazon U.S. link
Amazon U.K. link
Amazon Germany link
Amazon Canada link
B&H Photo link
Adorama Camera link
 

Featured Comment by jchristian: "Wow, I keep coming back to this shot. There's so much motion, and it's disorienting & a bit frightening. Love it."

Ansel Adams 'Archival Replicas'

Ansel Adams, Golden Gate Headlands, 1950

Thought you'd want to know, Dept.: the Ansel Adams Gallery, in Yosemite Valley, in conjunction with the Adams family and the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona, have decided to issue a new kind of Adams print. Up till now, if you wanted an Ansel Adams print, you had three choices: original prints, modern prints limited to 8x10 inches in size, and offset posters. Now there's a fourth alternative: 12-ink archival inkjets in sizes up to 30x38".

The big advantage? Price. The new "Archival Replicas"—seven are being offered initially, with more to follow—sell for $129 to $849 (mounted and matted). "Technology has advanced to the point that we're now able to make reproductions of my grandfather's originals to extraordinarily exacting standards," says Matthew Adams. "We believe these are the best large-format reproductions of Ansel's work yet made."

So how good are they really? I haven't seen one. Sounds promising, though.

Ansel Adams, Jeffrey Pine, 1940

________________________

Mike

Send this post to a friend

The Career of a Collection

Polaroid Corporation in its heyday was well known for supporting the work and activities of photographers, and cultivated a large and varied photography collection that was known far and wide. Apparently at least parts of that collection are now among the assets of beleaguered ex-tycoon Tom Petters and his bankrupt Petters Group Worldwide, which acquired the remnants of Polaroid Corp. three years ago.

Let's hope somebody's looking after the work properly, and that it finds a suitable and more stable home soon.

____________________

Mike  (Thanks to Hudson Leighton)

Send this post to a friend

ADDENDUM:

The Polaroid Book: Selections from the Polaroid Collections of Photography

(Thanks to Simon)