RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Should’

Should you upgrade to a Nikon D850?

27 Aug

Should you upgrade to a Nikon D850?

The D850 was just announced, and by all accounts it’s shaping up to be a very impressive camera. Depending on what kind of photography you prefer, the D850 might be a useful upgrade to a current Nikon DSLR, and a compelling alternative for someone looking to switch from a rival system.

In this article, I’m going to imagine that you’re interested in the D850, and considering it to replace or sit alongside your current camera. For the sake of maintaining focus on spec and performance, I’m also going to assume that you’re fine spending $ 3300, plus another $ 900 or so for the optional grip and a D5 battery + charger, if you want to take the D850 up to 9 fps. Where money is mentioned at all, it’s mostly where the D850 costs substantially more than the camera you might be considering upgrading or switching from.

Mostly I’ll be focusing on how the D850 stacks up against other current and previous-generation Nikon DSLRs, but I’ve added three slides at the end of this article, giving a basic picture of how it compares against competitive full-frame cameras from Canon, Ricoh and Sony.

Should you upgrade from a D810? Maybe.

Let’s start with perhaps the most obvious question – is the D850 enough of an upgrade to justify replacing its predecessor, the D810 (shown on the left, above)? The answer, predictably, is ‘maybe’.

On the one hand, while the changes from the D800/e to the D810 were relatively minor, the D850 has been substantially updated across the board. On the other, the D810 is still a great camera, and for some kinds of photography, the D850’s extra features might reasonably be considered ‘nice to have’, but not essential.

Even if you mostly shoot static subjects with your D810, the D850 still has a lot to offer

Obviously the D850 offers greater resolution and a major speed increase, but more important (we think) is the completely overhauled AF system, which should provide class-leading autofocus on a par with the D5 and D500 – as well as inheriting those cameras’ automatic AF fine-tuning feature. AF sensitivity down to -3EV is a major improvement over the D810 which (for reasons we could never really figure out) was pretty unreliable in poor light.

And even if you mostly shoot static subjects with your D810, the D850 still has a lot to offer. Ergonomically, the new camera is much improved. A tilting, touch-sensitive rear LCD is really handy for tripod-mounted photography, and illuminated controls are a game-changer for astrophotography and landscape shooting in low light. The D850 is more comfortable to hold, too.

Just about the only use-case where the D850 might not represent a useful upgrade to a D810 is for tethered studio shooting, where you don’t need things like autofocus or continuous shooting. But even here, the D850’s tilting rear screen might end up being very handy.

Reasons to upgrade:

  • More resolution
  • Greater speed
  • Better autofocus, including superior low-light sensitivity
  • Improved ergonomics
  • Illuminated controls
  • Tilting, touch-sensitive screen
  • 4K video

Stick with your D810 if:

  • You mostly shoot in a studio
  • You really need a built-in flash

Should you upgrade from a D800/E? Yes.

If you skipped the D810 and still shoot with a D800 or D800E, the choice is easier. There isn’t a single use case that I can think of where the D850 won’t substantially outperform your camera, or at least make your life easier as a photographer.

the 4K-capable D850 is a much more attractive option for occasional video work

If you shoot landscapes, you’ll get better base ISO dynamic range, less risk of mirror and shutter-induced vibration ruining your shot, and greater resolution. You’ll also appreciate the backlit controls and a tilting screen. If you shoot portraits and events, the D850 will probably prove more comfortable to use, as well as offering a much improved AF system with greater coverage and an automatic fine-tuning capability. The 4K-capable D850 is also a much more attractive option for occasional video work, if required.

For sports or wildlife photography the D850’s wider, better autofocus system should take your photography to another level, and the deeper buffer and maximum continuous shooting rate of up to 9 fps (with optional grip and battery) is a nice upgrade over the five year-old D800/E, too.

Reasons to upgrade:

  • More resolution
  • Better Raw dynamic range (at ISO 64)
  • Greater speed
  • Better autofocus
  • Less risk of mirror/shutter vibration
  • Improved ergonomics
  • Illuminated controls
  • 4K video.

Stick with your D800/E if:

  • You mostly shoot in a studio
  • You really need a built-in flash

Should you upgrade from a D750? Maybe.

The Nikon D750 is a fine camera, and despite its age (knocking on for three years now) it remains the DSLR that we probably recommend most, to anyone looking to upgrade to full-frame. Partly this is because it offers excellent performance and a solid feature set in an impressively small form-factor, but also because over the past couple of years it’s price has dropped to a level where it’s simply one of the best value DSLRs on the market.

The D850 is a lot more camera than the D750, but it also costs a lot more money. If you have the cash though, the D850 is a solid upgrade. One obvious benefit is resolution. Where the D750 features a 24MP sensor, the D850 basically doubles the pixel-count, which should equate to a substantial increase in effective resolution (provided your lenses are up to the challenge). At ISO 64, the D850’s Raw dynamic range will probably be considerably better, too, which can be very useful for several different use-cases.

Despite its larger file sizes, the D850 is a faster, more powerful camera than the D750

Despite its larger file sizes, the D850 is a faster, more powerful camera than the D750. Its autofocus system should be roughly on a par with the flagship D5 (which really means that it should be better than anything else on the market, when it comes to tracking) and while straight out of the box, the D850’s continuous shooting rate of 7 fps is similar to the D750, adding the optional grip and higher-capacity battery takes it up to 9 fps. The D750 (shown above, with and without its own optional grip) maxes out at 6.5fps regardless of configuration.

That extra speed doesn’t come cheap, though. If you don’t have a bunch of cash to throw around, the D750 is likely to remain pretty competitive for a while yet and except for some niche use-cases (like astrophotography) it should serve you well.

Reasons to upgrade:

  • Significantly greater resolution
  • Greater speed (with the grip + D5 battery)
  • Better autofocus
  • Better Raw dynamic range (at ISO 64)
  • Touch-sensitive rear LCD
  • Illuminated controls
  • Better weather-sealing
  • 4K video

Stick with your D750 if:

  • You don’t shoot fast action
  • You don’t shoot in low light
  • You don’t need the extra resolution
  • You really need a built-in flash

Should you upgrade from a D700? Definitely.

So you’re still rocking a D700? Good for you. There’s nothing wrong with that – the D700 was and remains a very capable camera. But after almost ten years, it has been bettered by several subsequent Nikon DSLRs, in several respects. Comparing the D700 to the D850 is like comparing an Apple II to a MacBook Pro. As nostalgic as I am for the older technology, if I had a job to do, I know which tool I’d rather use.

Stop reading and order a D850 now

So – assuming you have the funds, you should stop reading and order a D850 now. Just do it. Why are you still reading? Go!

I’d recommend keeping your D700 as a backup, though. And that’s not just me being sentimental – these days, it might not be worth enough when traded in to make much of a difference to the upgrade cost.

Reasons to upgrade:

  • All of the reasons

Stick with your D700 if:

  • Your lucky number is 7

Should you upgrade from a D500? Probably not.

If you’re currently shooting with a D500, the question of whether you should upgrade to the D850 is a bit more complicated. Because they’re such different cameras, on balance I wouldn’t recommend replacing a D500 with a D850. But if you have the cash, the D850 would make an excellent companion to a D500, fulfilling a slightly different set of requirements.

The 20MP D500 is a high-speed, relatively low-resolution DSLR, with a very wide AF area. This makes it ideal for shooting sports and wildlife, where its 1.5X crop factor can be extremely useful. It’s weather-sealed, and offers many of the same ergonomic refinements that make the D850 a more pleasant camera to use than previous-generation D800-series DSLRs.

The D850 offers substantially greater resolution, a nice bump in Raw dynamic range, and a feature set better suited to landscape and studio work

The D850 on the other hand offers substantially greater resolution, what’s likely to be a nice bump in Raw dynamic range at ISO 64, and a feature set better suited to landscape and studio work, as well as portraiture and astrophotography. The D850 can also shoot 4K video without a crop, making it more useful for occasional video work than the D500, too.

The only caveat here is that if you’ve built up a collection of DX format lenses for your D500, you’ll need to drop even more cash on some full-frame zooms or primes for the D850. Hopefully though, Nikon’s conspicuously-crummy DX-format lens lineup has already prompted you to invest in full-frame glass.

Reasons to upgrade:

  • Greater resolution
  • Greater dynamic range
  • 4K video with no crop

Stick with your D500 if:

  • You mostly shoot sports / wildlife (or anything where the 1.5X crop and greater AF coverage is handy)
  • You don’t have any full-frame lenses

Should you upgrade from a D4/S? Probably.

If you’re shooting with a D4, or D4S, there are very few reasons why the D850 would do the same, or a better job for you than your existing camera. Arguably, the only significant point in the D4/S’s favor at this point is durability. The D800-series are tough, solid cameras but they’re not built to withstand the same kind of abuse as Nikon’s flagship pro sports models.

And… that’s about it.

The value of the D4/Ss 11 fps continuous shooting is somewhat moot when you consider that the D850 can manage 9 fps with a couple of (admittedly expensive) accessories, and the additional stamina of the D4/S’s larger battery is unlikely to prove a to be a deal-breaker for most photographers. The D4/S offers a Gigabit Ethernet port, but outside of shooting in a major sports stadium, that’s not a feature that most of us are ever likely to need.

At 7-9 fps the D850’s huge files will rip through memory cards, so it’s not a camera you want to take to the Olympic Games

Then there’s resolution. The D4/S are built for working photojournalists that need speed, durability and versatility. And part of ‘versatility’ in this context is a relatively low pixel count of 16MP, which while big enough for print and online media, isn’t so big that file sizes become an issue when shooting at high frame rates for extended periods of time, or wiring images back to a picture desk. At 7-9 fps the D850’s huge files will rip through memory cards, so it’s probably not a camera you want to take to the Olympic Games. But at 45MP, those files are much more versatile for general use.

When you consider that the D850 also features a next-generation autofocus system, more versatile rear LCD and 4K video capture, it really does look like a solid upgrade over a D4/S. And of course without the optional grip it’s considerably smaller and lighter, too.

Reasons to upgrade:

  • Greater resolution
  • Better Raw dynamic range
  • Better autofocus system
  • Tilting, touch-sensitive rear LCD
  • Smaller and lighter body
  • 4K video

Stick with your D4/S if:

  • You need the ultimate in durability and stamina
  • You use a specific pro-oriented feature (i.e, wired Gigabit Ethernet)

Should you switch systems and buy a D850?

I’m not going to attempt to comprehensively answer this question because a) it’s unanswerable, and b) I get enough hate-mail already. But whenever one of the major manufacturers brings out a new flagship model, it is reasonable (and if nothing else – interesting) to consider how well it stacks up against competitive models. So here goes…

Compared to the Sony a7R II

Compared to Sony’s a7R II, the D850 is likely to be superior as a strictly stills camera. It’s tougher, offers vastly better battery life, slightly higher resolution, probably better dynamic range at base ISO, and ergonomically it’s more refined. While it lacks in-camera stabilization, features like illuminated controls and touch-sensitivity are the kind of little extras that will, I suspect, end up being hugely appreciated by some photographers.

For a stills-oriented user the D850 is probably the smarter option

The a7R II is a superior video camera, and as such a better hybrid camera, but for a stills-oriented user the D850 is probably the smarter option. I don’t want to get too deep into the thorny question of lenses, but it’s also worth considering that while Sony’s E-mount is relatively new, the D850 is fully compatible with a huge number of high-quality AF and manual focus lenses, going back decades.

The newer Sony a9 is more competitive when it comes to core stills photography performance, but of course at a much lower resolution.

Points in the D850’s favor:

  • (Slightly) higher resolution
  • Wider dynamic range (at ISO 64)
  • Tougher, more durable build
  • Touch-sensitive rear LCD
  • Illuminated controls
  • Much better battery life
  • Wider range of compatible lenses

Points in the a7R II’s favor:

  • Better video specification
  • In-camera image stabilization
  • On-sensor PDAF in live view and movie modes
  • Smaller, lighter body

Compared to the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV

Compared to the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, the D850 is likely to be superior in almost every measurable respect, as both a stills and video capture device. It is faster, offers greater resolution, wider Raw dynamic range, probably better high ISO image quality, a much better autofocus system, more versatile ergonomics, and a more practical 4K video capture option (as well as focus peaking for HD video capture).

The EOS 5D IV offers Canon’s peerless Dual Pixel autofocus in live view and movie modes, which is a major advantage

But I did say almost every respect. Importantly, the EOS 5D IV offers Canon’s peerless Dual Pixel autofocus in live view and movie modes, which is a major advantage over the Nikon and makes it a much more usable camera in some situations. The D850’s live view AF is clumsy by comparison.

I’d also note the fact that Canon is on a roll with its current high-end zoom lenses. Newer L-series zooms, like the EF 11-24mm F4, EF 16-35mm F2.8 III and 24-70mm F2.8 II are truly excellent. Nikon’s equivalent wide zoom options aren’t quite as good (and in the case of the 14-24mm F2.8 just plain old) by comparison. Less quantifiable but still worth noting is that many photographers simply prefer Canon’s control interface.

Points in D850’s favor:

  • Greater resolution
  • Wider dynamic range
  • Better autofocus
  • Faster continous shooting
  • Tilting rear LCD
  • Full-frame 4K

Points in 5D Mark IV’s favor:

  • Dual Pixel autofocus in live view and video
  • (Arguably) more user-friendly user interface

Compared to the Ricoh Pentax K-1

I said earlier that I didn’t want to get any hate-mail, and with that in mind, I would be a fool not to mention the perennial ‘don’t forget the…’ camera of our age: the Ricoh Pentax K-1.

In terms of image quality, the K-1’s 36MP sensor is basically on a level with the original D800/E, and while perfectly usable for static subjects, when the going gets tough, its autofocus system can’t compete with any recent generation of Nikon’s wide-area AF arrays in its high-end APS-C or full-frame cameras. Oh, and it can’t shoot 4K video either. As such, for most applications it lags behind the D850 as both as a stills and video platform.

The K-1’s feature set been very nicely tweaked to suit the needs of landscape and outdoor photographers

Where the K-1 shines is weather-sealing (always a Pentax strength), built-in image stabilization, and an interface and feature set that have been very nicely tweaked to suit the specific needs of landscape and outdoor photographers. Its multi-angle articulating screen and illuminated controls are really handy, likewise built-in GPS, and various sensor-shifting modes that are available to increase color resolution, simulate the effect of an AA filter, keep your horizons level, and to track stars. Oh, and it’s much cheaper, too.

Points in D850’s favor:

  • Greater resolution
  • Wider dynamic range
  • Better autofocus
  • Faster continuous shooting
  • Touch-sensitive rear LCD
  • 4K movie capture
  • Greater number of (modern) lens options

Points in K-1’s favor:

  • In-camera stabilization
  • Various clever sensor-shift modes
  • Built-in GPS
  • Multi-angle rear LCD
  • It’s cheaper

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Should you upgrade to a Nikon D850?

Posted in Uncategorized

 

7 Non-Photography Items Which No Travel Photographer Should Leave Home Without

27 Aug

It’s fair to say that as a travel photographer you can never be 100% prepared for everything. There are so many different scenarios and variables that can affect your photography and your journey that you simply can’t predict. But over time you will begin to learn techniques that will help you be able to tackle the issues you’ll encounter.

Part of this is your list of equipment. While the obvious photographic equipment might seem straightforward, there are also a number of non-photographic items that will begin to make it on your list. As you will discover over time they can also be invaluable. Here are seven of my must-have items that might also help you along the way.

7 Non-Photography Items Which No Travel Photographer Should Leave Home Without

#1 – Plastic Bag and a Rubber Band

It doesn’t matter how well you prepare and how many times you check the weather forecast, at some point every travel photographer will get caught in the rain. Most times you can avoid you and your camera equipment getting wet by trying to wait it out under some shelter. But sometimes you can’t or more importantly, you still want to photograph. After all, rain can provide wonderful reflections on the surface of pavements and roads not to mention people with umbrellas that can really help tell a story.

So to avoid getting your camera wet, simply take an ordinary plastic bag and cut a hole big enough for your lens hood to fit through. You want roughly half of the lens hood sticking out and the hole in the bag should be a tight fit. Put your camera in from the top of the bag (as if you were putting shopping in it) and stick the lens with the hood attached through the hole. Put the elastic band around the bag near the hole to keep it in place and voila you have created a bag to keep the rain off your camera.

When you want to shoot with your camera simply put your hand in the bag and hold the camera inside. Sure you can probably find an expensive version that you can buy, but why waste money when you can make it yourself?

7 Non-Photography Items Which No Travel Photographer Should Leave Home Without

DIY rain cover.

#2 – A Face Towel

If you ask me what is the one non-photographic item that I always carry with me, it’ll be a small face towel. I have lost count of the number of times that I have used a towel in different scenarios. Whether it’s to wipe my camera dry after getting water, mud, or anything else on it, or wiping my face when I’m hot and sweaty (it’s amazing how much better you feel when you can simply wipe your face with a clean towel when you are out and about all day), wiping my finger when I have cut myself, or even just wiping a bench dry after rain so I could sit down while waiting instead of standing up (or getting my trousers wet by sitting on a wet bench). The number of times that a simple towel will come in handy will astound you.

The number of times that a simple towel will come in handy will astound you.

7 Non-Photography Items Which No Travel Photographer Should Leave Home Without

#3 – Smartphone

Okay, so technically speaking a Smartphone isn’t a “non-photographic” item but ignoring the camera element, it has become a must these days for travel photographers. Whether it’s to check sun direction, weather forecast, maps, making notes about potential shoot locations and metadata details, to simply having access to pass the time by reading the news while waiting for sunset, a Smartphone has become an essential tool for every travel photographer.

7 Non-Photography Items Which No Travel Photographer Should Leave Home Without

#4 – Compass

For the majority of photographers, a Smartphone has replaced the trusted compass. But it’s still worth having a small one in your bag just in case your phone runs out of power or you can’t get a signal. Besides being able to bail you out when you get lost, a compass can help you determine sunrise/sunset direction where the light will move, which is essential for any travel photographer.

7 Non-Photography Items Which No Travel Photographer Should Leave Home Without

#5 – Gloves

Travel photography usually means early starts and late finishes as the soft light in and around sunrise and sunset is great for photography. This usually means you’ll be out and about when it’s colder than during the day and trying to work your camera dials with cold hands or even carrying a tripod is not an enjoyable experience.

During the daytime depending on the time of year, it can be pretty cold for your hands and even in the summer months it can get much colder in the evenings and early mornings. So do yourself (and your hands) a favor and keep a pair of gloves in your camera bag.

7 Non-Photography Items Which No Travel Photographer Should Leave Home Without

#6 – Pen and Paper

Sometimes you simply can’t beat pen and paper. It might be to take notes, to jot down ideas for shoots, to sketch a composition that you want to try and create later, or it might simply be to take the email address of the person who’s photo you have just taken so that you can email them a copy. Whatever the reason, a pen and paper is always useful to have in your camera bag.

https://www.amazon.com/LowePro-Photographers-Glove-L/dp/B019GXBYZG/ref=as_li_ss_tl?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1502657159&sr=1-1&keywords=lowepro+gloves&linkCode=ll1&tag=dpmentor-20&linkId=fb11ba7773e3b22547c80f4862d69570

#7 – Sunscreen and a Hat

It’s easy to forget sunscreen and a hat among all of the other things above, in addition to your photographic equipment, but they are essentials for anyone working outdoors. As a travel photographer, you will be spending most of your days out and about and it’s easy to get distracted and not notice a few hours going by. The last thing you need on a photo trip is to get sun burned.

https://www.amazon.com/LowePro-Photographers-Glove-L/dp/B019GXBYZG/ref=as_li_ss_tl?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1502657159&sr=1-1&keywords=lowepro+gloves&linkCode=ll1&tag=dpmentor-20&linkId=fb11ba7773e3b22547c80f4862d69570

Conclusion

Over the years, I have found that these small items have become invaluable. I will, of course, adapt this list as I go and add or remove things for certain destinations. For example, if I’m out in the wilderness I would carry a first aid kit, an emergency kit with things like a whistle, blanket, etc., a torch, and the relevant maps of the areas I’m planning to explore. But my basic list of items accompanies me on any trip even a short city break.

Over time you will build up your own set of items. But for the time being, I hope this list is useful for you.

Anything else you can think of? What non-photographic item do you always carry with you and why? Please tell us in the comments below.

The post 7 Non-Photography Items Which No Travel Photographer Should Leave Home Without by Kav Dadfar appeared first on Digital Photography School.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on 7 Non-Photography Items Which No Travel Photographer Should Leave Home Without

Posted in Photography

 

The D850 should dismiss the idea that Nikon is on the ropes

25 Aug

To be clear, I’ve not done much more than handle the D850 so far. Until we’ve spent a lot more time testing the camera, we won’t know whether it’s as good as its specs suggest it should be. But if it can deliver on a significant proportion of this promise, it’ll be one hell of a camera. That would make Nikon look like a company fresh for the next round, rather than unsteady on its feet and heading for the canvas.

The Nikon DL 18-50: so much promise, unfulfilled.

True enough, it’s been a difficult couple of years for Nikon. The company’s mirrorless 1 System seem to have found its audience, at least not based on the limited US and European sales figures I’ve seen. The company has had an awkward run of very public recalls and apparent lapses in quality assurance and control: from oil spots in the D600, to battery recalls and faulty shutters on some D750s. To compound these woes, the company generated a lot of excitement with the announcement of the DL series: a trio of 1″ sensor compacts that got as far as the company’s paid pros before Nikon was forced to cancel the project due to problems with the processors.

These setbacks and Sony’s announcement that it’s captured (and apparently retained) the #2 sales spot for full frame in the US might give the impression of a slow-moving or even complacent company. A company on the verge of ruin, according to some.

It’s a perspective I’d politely characterize as myopic balderdash.

All things to all shooters…

For those people wanting something futuristic, the D850 might be a let-down. It doesn’t include the kind of hybrid viewfinder that was on some of the more fanciful wishlists. And it’s true that the D850 isn’t as radically, perhaps even sexily, innovative as Sony’s barnstorming mirrorless a9, but from what I’ve seen, it could be the most versatile DSLR ever released.

Yes, it’s a fairly conventional DSLR. But what a DSLR.

To be clear, I’m not expecting it to be a great video camera. Sure, 4K UHD from the full width of the sensor is a pretty impressive spec, but I have my concerns about the seemingly pixel-binned footage and quite significant-looking rolling shutter. (And that’s before you even consider the wobbly and often noisy video AF). Not that these things would completely negate the feature: it may still look good if shot carefully, especially when downscaled to 1080 resolution. But my lack of concern is because video has nothing to do with what makes me think the D850 looks so impressive.

Throughout the history of high-end digital, you’ve generally had to make a choice: do I need high resolution or high speed? If the D850 delivers on its promise, you can now have both, in a way that only the a99 II has tried to offer before.

Wedding photographers will get a camera that can cope with whatever’s thrown at them

This has a radical effect on who the camera works for. Seven frame per second shooting is more than enough for a really wide range of shooting, especially if the camera is able to autofocus like a D5 (probably the best autofocus performance we’ve ever tested). For anybody that needs more than this, they can add the battery grip and D5 battery, and boost the output to 9 fps. This combination will still cost less than the D5 and retain the option to remove the grip when you don’t want to lug a twin-grip camera around.

That’s likely to be enough capability to satisfy all but the most demanding sports shooters and photojournalists. But, significantly, it promises to do this with the kind of resolution that’ll satisfy the more committed landscape or studio shooter. Consequently, it’ll bring improved resolution and improved speed to everybody in between, such as wedding shooters who’ll benefit from both by getting a camera that can cope with whatever’s thrown at them.

…in all lighting?

Whatever its provenance, the D850’s BSI sensor promises high DR at low ISO and high performance at high ISO.

But speed and resolution isn’t the only apparent contradiction the D850 could end up resolving. If it’s up to contemporary standards, the D850’s BSI sensor design should be more efficient than the chips used in the D810 and D750, so perform better (or at least as well) in low light and high ISO, when compared at the same size. And, if its ISO 64 mode can match the dynamic range of the D810, that’ll put it on a par with the likes of the Fujifilm GFX 50S in terms of absolute dynamic range. Though, it should be pointed out, there’s never really been a good reason to think the two factors were in conflict.

So, while the D850 may look like just another DSLR, its specs suggest something a bit more than that. And the recent turbulence shouldn’t make us forget that Nikon really does know how to build a DSLR.

Not just competent DSLRs

But Nikon’s progressive innovation extends beyond DSLRs. It may have seemed unsure who the 1 System and its lenses were actually for, but there was some undeniably interesting technology underpinning them. They were some of the first cameras to feature extensive on-sensor PDAF, and they were capable of no-blackout live view burst shooting many years in advance of Sony’s a9.

Having already created what could be the pinnacle of DSLR design thus far, bear in mind Nikon has also applied to patent some of the technology required to create vertical and horizontal-sensitive split pixel AF (what could be essentially a cross-type variant of Canon’s Dual Pixel AF). It has also, despite the embarrassment of the DL U-turn, publicly announced its intention to build a mirrorless camera consistent with the company’s reputation.

So if you’re looking at the online doom and gloom, worrying ‘what about video’ and interpreting the D850 as a sign that Nikon is on the ropes, I’d argue you’re not really paying attention. It’s not yet the final round and Nikon is up and swinging.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The D850 should dismiss the idea that Nikon is on the ropes

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Equivalence is useful if you have any interest in light (and as a photographer, you probably should)

23 Aug

Photography is all about light, something you’ll quickly discover even if you’re not familiar with the word’s Greek origins. Most of the time, we use a standard framework (the standard exposure model) to discuss how much light your camera is receiving. However, this isn’t the only way of looking at things.

‘Equivalence’ gives us another way of looking at light, that just happens to give a clearer understanding of the capabilities of different formats. It’s a common misconception that equivalence and the more familiar standard exposure model are at odds with each other, but the two systems aren’t contradictory – they just tell different parts of the same story.

The Standard Exposure Model

The standard exposure model uses shutter speed and F-number (the ratio of a lens’s focal length, relative to its exit pupil) to describe how much light your camera is receiving. Using this ratio normalizes the behavior of lenses based on how much light they project per unit area, meaning it works consistently across different focal lengths. The available light and the exposure you can devote to it tend to dictate most of the noise in your image, so are the most effective way of reducing it.

A third factor (which is applied after the light has been captured, so doesn’t affect exposure, per se) is sensitivity (ISO) which, at its most basic can be thought of as essentially ‘whatever amplification or brightening is needed to provide the expected image brightness from a given exposure.’ This has the effect of ensuring that the exposure system works, regardless of what format you’re shooting on.

Lightmeters are designed to express the light level in terms of the standard exposure model. Since this system is, by design, independent of format so are their results.

There are many benefits to this system. It means that you never have to think about what format you’re shooting with: everything from your smartphone to a medium-format back will work using the same settings in the same lighting conditions. This is the reason light meters are able to work without giving a fig for what camera you’ve got.

The main downside to this*, is that it obscures the effects of format. There’s nothing wrong with thinking in terms of exposure, but it leads to slightly wooly conclusions such as ‘full-frame sensors can give less depth of field and are better in low light’ which is generally correct but not very precise. In turn, this can lead to confusion about why this is the case. ‘Something to do with bigger pixels?**’

Equivalence: the whole image perspective

Equivalence is simply a different way of looking at the same thing. Instead of thinking about light per unit area, it looks at the total amount of light that goes to make up the whole image. As a result, it assumes you’re trying to take a specific picture (matched framing, shot from the same position) and also requires you to compare images at the same size. In other words, it’s about pictures, not pixel peeping.

It’s not a matter of faith, nor does it contradict anything that the exposure model says, it’s simply a question of geometry. In the film era, where most people used a single format and only a generally knowledgeable minority used medium and large formats, the same underlying effects were usually discussed in terms of enlargement. But, since there’s no fundamental link between the size of your pixels and the size you choose to view or print them, ‘enlargement’ becomes a slightly arcane way of thinking about it.

Equivalence is simply a way of looking at how much light a system gets, and just happens to use the 135 film format as the baseline for those comparisons (because it was the dominant system in the film era, which saw it being used as the basis of comparison for focal lengths, when the many and various sensor formats emerged at the beginning of the digital era).

Equivalence, the basics

Equivalent f-numbers are a means of considering the combined effect of the aperture and sensor size.

In the same way that equivalent focal lengths describe the effect of sensor size on the field-of-view a lens gives, equivalent apertures describe the effect of sensor size on the properties that aperture affects (depth of field, diffraction, total light projected). In both instances, the underlying properties are not changed: neither the focal length or F-number of a lens is changed by different sensor sizes, only their effects.

  • F-number = focal length/aperture diameter
  • Equivalent f-number = equivalent focal length/aperture diameter

Comparing equivalent apertures allows you to understand how much control a lens will give you over depth-of-field. It also gives a good idea of how low-light performance will compare between two cameras of different sensor sizes, since it tells you how much total light is making up the final image (most noise is most images comes from the amount of light captured).

However, because the exposure and ISO system is, by design, independent of sensor size, equivalent apertures should only be used to understand camera/lens capability, not exposure.

To keep things real-world relevant, equivalence assumes you’re shooting the same framing from the same position and then viewing the images at the same output size.

Looking at total light or light per image, means we can better recognize the effect of light on depth-of-field, diffraction and noise. Rather than vaguely saying that ‘full-frame is, er, better than APS-C’ we can understand why and how much more or less light a larger or smaller sensor will receive at the same exposure settings (same shutter speed and same F-number), by calculating what the equivalent F-numbers are.

So, since a 50mm F2 lens used on APS-C behaves equivalently to a 75mm F3 lens on full-frame, we can see that a full-frame camera with a 75mm F2 could receive up to one and a sixth stops more light, if you opened the lens up to its maximum aperture. You can see this would give a shallower depth of field and a little over one stop of noise improvement, assuming comparable sensor performance.

Looking at it this way not only shows us the boundaries of the capabilities of each system but also gives us a meaningful way to assess whether either system is under or over-performing, relative to other systems, since it gives us a set of expectations about what it should be capable of.

This really shouldn’t be controversial

You do not need to consider equivalence for a moment when choosing an exposure. You do not have to multiply the F-number by the crop factor, unless you want to understand its behavior, relative to another system. However, it is completely legitimate to do so. The logic behind it is mathematically sound***, it holds up to real-world testing and it can be informative, if you’re interested. It’s an effective tool, whether you have need for it or not.

For more information, with real-world examples, read our more in-depth article on the subject.

* …beyond the flexibility in the ISO standard that means cameras don’t actually have to produce the image brightness you expect, and the fact that ISO as used by camera makers has very little meaning in terms of Raw shooting. [Back to text]

** If you view two images at the same size, the ones taken with the larger sensor at the same field of view, F-number and shutter speed will usually be cleaner in close proportion to the sensor size increase, almost regardless of the pixel size. Whether you have the same number of larger pixels or a larger number of the same sized pixels generally makes very little difference. [Back to text]

*** As Andy Rowlands’ Physics of Digital Photography points out, equivalence works at most normal photographic distances but, because it’s based on a slightly simplified depth of field equation, doesn’t hold true as you approach the close focus distances used for macro photography. This is equally true for focal length equivalence. [Back to text]

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Equivalence is useful if you have any interest in light (and as a photographer, you probably should)

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Canon EOS 80D to EOS 6D Mark II: in the light of the review, should I upgrade?

14 Aug

Is it worth upgrading my EOS 80D to the EOS 6D Mark II?

We already had a simple look at how good an upgrade the EOS 6D II makes for 80D owners, based on our early impressions of the camera. Now we’ve had a chance to spend more time with it (and to go back and shoot with the 80D again), we thought we’d look at the differences and benefits in more detail.

We’re going to try not to make too many assumptions about what you shoot with your 80D and what you value in a camera, beyond assuming that you kinda like your current camera, that you enjoy using a camera that works broadly as well in live view mode as it does through the viewfinder and that you’d like something fairly similar but, you know, better. Will the 6D II do that for you?

Image quality improvements

The 6D II’s larger sensor means it receives more total light than the 80D, when shot with the same exposure settings (the same light per unit area, but with more capture area). This generally means the 6D II will offer better image quality than the 80D. As much as anything else, this tends to be what prompts most people to move to larger sensor formats.

However, you don’t get the full advantage that you’d get if the 6D II simply used a scaled-up version of the 80D’s sensor, so how much of a step up does the 6D end up being?

The sensor size difference means you can get shallower depth-of-field more readily than you could on the 80D. Indeed, shoot the same scene from the same position and at the same f-number and you’ll get shallower depth of field. For certain types of photos, shallow depth of field is interpreted as better.

The 6D II’s larger sensor also means you get better performance in low light. If you regularly shoot above about ISO 1600, the 6D II will give you an immediate improvement in image quality, simply because it gets more light.

Image quality concerns

The more sophisticated design of the 80D’s sensor means it adds less noise to its images than its big brother. This means that, at low ISO settings, the 80D will produce more flexible Raw files, that make it easier to represent the detail in high-contrast scenes, before you hit the noise floor. If you’ve become used to exploiting the 80D’s pretty impressive dynamic range, it may be a bit of a shock to find you end up with more prominent noise if you try to manipulate an image shot in high-DR circumstances, such as sunsets or backlit subjects.

That said, we’re aware that a great many people primarily shoot JPEG. Since the differences in performance between the two cameras’ sensors tends to occur in very dark tones within the image, so may well be either too dark to perceive or clipped entirely to black if you’re only looking at JPEG images. Even engaging Auto Lighting Optimizer or Highlight Tone Priority – the camera’s two DR compression modes that risk pulling noise into the image – isn’t a problem (though it’s interesting you can’t use the two in conjunction). However, you don’t get the noise improvement at low ISO you might reasonably expect from the move to full-frame.

Viewfinder differences

The 6D II has a viewfinder with 98% coverage and 0.71x magnification, while the 80D has 100% coverage and 0.94x magnification. Yet that’s not the clear win to the 80D that it might seem.

Since both magnification figures are measured using a 50mm lens, the 80D’s figure benefits from its 1.6x crop factor. Compare them on a normalized basis and the 6D II’s 0.71x magnification looks pretty good compared with 0.59x. And, sure enough, in use the 6D II’s viewfinder is appreciably bigger. It’s one of the benefits that a full frame DSLR offers over a cropped sensor that is often overlooked, especially by anyone too young to have regularly shot film and become accustomed to a large finder. It’s lovely to shoot through a nice, big viewfinder and the 6D II’s is a significant step up from the 80D’s.

It’s not all good news, though. The 80D’s 100% finder means its easier to construct precise compositions. Knowing exactly where the corners are is hugely valuable for ensuring lead-in lines run directly from the corner of the frame, for instance (the 6D II’s 98% coverage should be enough that you don’t have to worry too much about stray objects intruding in your shots).

Autofocus

The camera uses essentially the same AF module as the 80D. This means the spread of AF points is considerably less extensive on the larger camera. This means that, unlike the 80D, you don’t get AF points on the ‘thirds’ lines of your image: the outer columns of points reach a little beyond the thirds horizontally, but they don’t quite reach the vertical thirds lines. This isn’t an unworkable situation, of course: the parallax error of focus-and-recompose isn’t going to be significant over such a small distance, but it’ll take some getting used to, after the 80D’s wider spread.

In terms of autofocus performance, we doubt you’ll notice any great difference. Both cameras performed fairly similarly in our testing. The EOS 6D II isn’t terrible at tracking a subject but it’s not great, either. If you’ve found settings or a way of working that suits the kind of shooting you like to do, you can carry this over to the 6D II.

Like the 80D, the 6D II’s tracking in live view mode is pretty good, especially if you’re shooting single images at a time. It’s in continuous (servo) mode that the performance drops significantly compared with the 80D, in terms of accuracy (in Continuous H mode) or a much slower frame rate (in Continuous L). So not really an upgrade, but broadly consistent with the system you’ve already learned and adapted to.

Difference in features

The EOS 6D II has Canon’s latest, Digic 7 processor, but the differences between this and the older chip used in the 80D are subtle. There don’t appear to be any additional functions associated with the newer processor but Canon has talked about using the additional processing power to run more sophisticated algorithms that prevent the camera’s AF tracking from being distracted by other potential targets.

Another underlying hardware difference is in the two camera’s Wi-Fi connectivity. The 80D has a fairly conventional Wi-Fi setup, with the option to use NFC to speed-up pairing to your smartphone, if its manufacturer allows such frivolity. The updated implementation in the 6D II is a step forward, in that it allows a constant Bluetooth connection to be maintained between your phone and the camera. Again, the degree to which this simplifies life depends at least in part on what brand of phone you’re using, but it does make image transfer very straightforward.

The EOS 6D II also offers GPS, which the 80D doesn’t. This may not sound like something you’ll need but, even if you’re not an especially frequent traveler but, if you switch it on, it means every one of your images gains a useful additional piece of metadata that can be valuable in terms of organizing and retrieving your files, after you’ve shot them. Battery life does take a hit when using the GPS, however.

Other feature aspects

While the similarity of body shape and button layouts make it clear they’re aimed at similar photographers, there are a few differences that reflect the 80D’s position higher up the APS-C lineup than the 6D II’s position, relative to Canon’s other full-frame options.

The 80D gets a shutter mechanism that can fire as fast as 1/8000th of a second and can sync with flashes as fast as 1/250th of a second. With a larger distance to travel and perhaps some money being saved, the 6D II can only shoot at up to 1/4000th of a second and flash sync at 1/180th. These may sound like small differences but you may well notice them if you use fill flash or wide aperture lenses outdoors.

Other differences include the 80D having a headphone socket for audio monitoring during video shooting: something 6D II users will have to live without. It’s not quite clear why Canon chose not to include it or the less-compressed ‘All-I’ video option, both of which might be a frustration if you’ve been enjoying the 80D’s easy-to-shoot video.

But what about lenses?

The usefulness of lenses, vs simple compatibility is a subject I can be something of a stuck record about, but I do believe it’s something worth thinking about very hard before you upgrade. Don’t think about how many of your existing lenses will be usable, think about how many of them will perform roles that you actually need. At least take stock of how committed you really are to a system before concluding that you can only look within your current system.

Before I started at DPReview, I owned an APS-C DSLR, a mid-level kit zoom, a 50mm F1.8, and a third-party 70-200mm F2.8 (bought secondhand from a DPR forum member). How committed to ‘my’ brand was I?

The kit zoom is a write-off straight away, so I may as well try to sell that along with my old APS-C body. Having got used to using it as a 75mm equiv lens, do I suddenly need the 50mm field-of-view? Maybe, but it’s a cheap-enough lens that it’s not a deciding factor. The 70-200mm F2.8 was secondhand anyway, so I can probably recoup much of what I’ve paid for it if I sold it.

If it’d come down to it, it was a couple of spare batteries and the time I’d spent learning the quirks of my camera’s interface and behavior that was really holding me to that brand, not my ‘investment’ in lenses.

Should I upgrade?

Ultimately, that’s something only you can decide, we’re just trying to lay out what we see as the key factors you might want to consider.

We should be clear: the EOD 6D II isn’t a bad camera. In many respects, it’s a perfectly good one: certainly one that’s pretty enjoyable to shoot with. Although Dual Pixel AF really shines when shooting video, it’s still useful for stills shooters, providing what’s still the best and most usable live view experience of any of the DSLR makers.

If you enjoy your 80D, then you’ll probably like the 6D II for many of the same reasons (with the added bonus of more control over depth of field, better low light image quality and a bigger viewfinder).

The only real reason we’ve devoted so much space to addressing the question is because, with the 6D II, Canon has made the decision slightly less clear-cut than it’d normally be. You don’t get a significant improvement in AF performance, nor do you get the all-round improvement in image quality that the cost of moving to full-frame usually brings. But there certainly are advantages, and ones that you might find beneficial.

If you’re and 80D owner who’s decided to move to the 6D II or have decided not to, let us know what swung the decision for you.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Canon EOS 80D to EOS 6D Mark II: in the light of the review, should I upgrade?

Posted in Uncategorized

 

The Fujifilm Instax Square SQ10 is less fun than it should be

16 Jul

Fujifilm Instax Square SQ10
$ 280/£249 | www.fujifilm.com | Buy Now

The Instax Square SQ10 represents two firsts for Fujifilm’s Instax line. It’s the first to use the brand’s new square format film, which looks more like a classic Polaroid than the credit card-sized Instax Mini film used by all of the company’s other instant cameras. It’s also the first ‘hybrid’ instant camera offered by Fujifilm, meaning it’s actually a digital camera with the ability to print photos on instant film. You can do this as soon as you snap the shutter for a just-like-instant experience, or manually once you’ve had the chance to review it.

That’s right, this is a digital camera imitating a mobile app that imitates the effects of film cameras. What a time to be alive.

Since it is a digital camera, the SQ10 offers some modern conveniences that its instant-only peers don’t. For one, there’s a real LCD for image composition and menu navigation. There are also a few straightforward image setting adjustments available, like exposure compensation (+/-3 EV).

Key specifications

  • 3.6MP 1/4-in CMOS sensor
  • 3″ 460k-dot LCD
  • microSD card slot / built-in memory for 50 photos
  • Fixed 28.5mm equiv. F2.4 lens
  • Auto ISO only (100-1600)
  • Shooting modes: Standard, double exposure, bulb mode
  • Self timer: 10 or 2sec
  • Built-in NP-50 battery rated to 160 prints
  • Micro USB charging
  • 119mm x 47mm x 127mm / 4.7 x 1.9 x 5″

You can also save photos to internal memory and microSD. The camera automatically stores the last 50 images it printed to internal memory, so you can re-print photos. The SQ10 includes a selection of Instagram-style filters that can be used while shooting or added to images later, as well as a vignette effect. That’s right, this is a digital camera imitating a mobile app that imitates the effects of film cameras. What a time to be alive.

In use

In my first few outings with the camera I was determined to treat it like a true instant camera and left it in Auto print mode. But when not everybody in the photo was looking the right direction, or it turned out that I’d left the flash turned off when it was needed, it felt like I’d really screwed up and wasted a print. Just knowing that it could have been different made the experience less enjoyable than the carefree “Oh well, that’s film!” attitude I can take with my Instax mini 90.

If you dial in exposure compensation or turn the flash off, the SQ10 will continue to honor those settings even if you turn the camera off and back on. But it’s easy to forget they’re enabled as there’s no information displayed on the shooting screen. Before switching to manual printing I lost a few precious prints that way.

I also found that in printed images, shadow tones tend to come out significantly darker than they appear on the screen when viewed straight on. Features that were visible when I previewed images ended up being crushed in shadows when printed. Tilting the camera and viewing the LCD at an angle actually gives a more accurate print preview in some cases than viewing the image straight on.

The good news is that any modern digital camera will take nice photos in the right light

The good news is that any modern digital camera will take nice photos in the right light, and in ample sunshine the SQ10 produces very nice images. I got the best results leaving exposure compensation alone and embracing the punchy contrast. Flash portraits with subjects at a reasonable distance also look pleasant. Images taken in shade or under cloudy conditions have a noticeably cooler tint, and there’s no way to adjust white balance.

$ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_7023332162″,”galleryId”:”7023332162″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”standalone”:false,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”startInCommentsView”:false,”isMobile”:false}) });

When you do end up with a nice exposure, print quality is the Square’s strong point. It’s expensive, but I prefer Fujilm’s Instant film’s deep blacks and rich colors over the zero-ink Polaroid-branded competitor any day. And the square format is a selling point for my money – it’s the format associated with instant photography and if it’s good enough for OutKast, it’s good enough for me.

Fujifilm claims you can print photos from other cameras using the SQ10 if you load them onto a microSD card. I followed the instructions in the manual to the letter and never got anything but a read error when trying to view it on the camera. Your mileage may vary. Even if you can get it to work, it’s a pretty clumsy process. There’s no Wi-Fi included for printing from a phone or Fujifilm camera, which is a shame.

The SQ10 is also significantly heavier than the Instax mini 90 – at least it felt significant to my shoulders. The SQ10 weighs about a pound (450g) fully loaded; the 90 is half that Not back-breaking, but noticeable when you carry it around all day. The built-in battery is rated to 160 prints, and indeed it never needed a recharge during the course of this review.

Summing up

The Instax Square SQ10 offers a convincing imitation of instant photography, plus some of the modern comforts of digital. And there are plenty of benefits from this mashup of digital and instant technology. Having the ability to save the printing step for a convenient time is very nice if you’re say, on a hike, and don’t want to carry around a developing photo. Being able to make multiple prints is another bonus, and if you run out of film, great news – you can still take pictures.

But the truth is, if you opt to print manually rather than as you go, you’re basically just carrying around a mediocre digital camera that’s glued to an instant printer. The camera in the SQ10 is just not as good as a modern smartphone camera, plain and simple.

To be sure, smartphone cameras are awfully sophisticated these days, and if you count the phone they’re attached to, cost well more than the SQ10. And the great thing about the year 2017 is that even a bad digital camera will take nice photos in many conditions. If bright-light snapshots and flash portraits are your aim, then the SQ10’s digital camera component will serve you just fine. But if you plan to take photos without flash in lighting that’s less than ideal, you’d be better off using your phone.

The camera in the SQ10 is just not as good as a modern smartphone camera

If instant photography appeals to you but you want more control over the output than an all-film camera, the Instax Square SQ10 is worth a look. But it’s hard to recommend over Fuji’s standalone Instax SP-2 printer used with a smartphone. The camera that’s already in your pocket or purse likely offers a better automatic exposure mode, a polished user interface, infinite film-simulation filters and better control over exposure settings.

Shortcomings like poor image quality in low light are much easier to forgive in an all-film instant camera, but somehow feel more egregious in the SQ10 simply because it seems like the camera should be able to do better. To me at least, it feels less fun than all-instant photography, with not enough of the convenience of digital to make up for it.

What we like:

  • Digital conveniences like saving images and printing later
  • Lovely square format film
  • Good battery life

What we don’t like:

  • Small sensor struggles in low light
  • Prints are expensive at around $ 1.50 each
  • Tendency to crush shadows can make it difficult to judge exposure

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on The Fujifilm Instax Square SQ10 is less fun than it should be

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Should You Switch from Photoshop to Affinity Photo?

22 Jun

If you are considering the switch from Photoshop to Affinity Photo, you might wonder how it will affect your photo editing workflow. And how will just a tiny loss in features (for a big drop in price) affect your options for photo editing? Keep on reading to find out how your workflow will change, what you will miss and what Continue Reading

The post Should You Switch from Photoshop to Affinity Photo? appeared first on Photodoto.


Photodoto

 
Comments Off on Should You Switch from Photoshop to Affinity Photo?

Posted in Photography

 

Which DSLR Lens Should You Choose?

15 May

Nothing gives you more creative control over your photo snapping, than venturing into the world of DSLR photo-ing.

You can trick out your camera with new lenses, lights, tripods, and more to get just the photo-style you’re looking for. But, figuring out what lens to pick up first can be daunting.

So, we asked our Twitter followers (that’s you! Or … it could be) what lenses they first bought (or wish they had) after their kit lens – and we got lots of great answers and advice!

We’ve put these tips into this helpful guide so buying your first lens will be easy-peasy.

(…)
Read the rest of Which DSLR Lens Should You Choose? (838 words)

© Meg for Photojojo, 2017. |
Permalink |
No comment |
Add to
del.icio.us

Post tags:


Photojojo

 
Comments Off on Which DSLR Lens Should You Choose?

Posted in Equipment

 

6 Reasons Why You Should Use a Standard Lens for Street Photography

03 May

Henri-Cartier Bresson is well-known for his use of a 50mm lens, a standard lens on a 35mm film camera. If it’s good enough for Henri, then I guess it’s good enough for most modern street and travel photographers. When I worked at EOS magazine (Canon) we published an article about a photographer who traveled to India with nothing but a standard 50mm f/1.2 lens. His photos were beautiful.

But what is it about the standard lens that’s so appealing to street and travel photographers? I’m glad you asked! Let’s take a look.

Why You Should Use a Standard Lens for Street Photography

What is a standard lens?

A standard lens is a prime lens with a focal length roughly equivalent to the length of the diagonal measurement of the sensor (or film). A standard lens on a full-frame camera would have a focal length of 42mm. It is a lens that produces a field of view that is similar to the human eye or appears natural. 

In practice, the 50mm lens is considered the standard for full-frame cameras (although Pentax makes a 42mm lens). A 35mm or 28mm lens is standard for an APS-C camera, and a 25mm lens is standard for a Micro Four-Thirds camera.

I made all the photos in this article with a Fujinon 35mm f1.4 lens, a standard lens on my Fujifilm X-T1 camera. Standard lenses have lots of benefits. Here are some of them:

My Fuji 35mm f/1.4 standard lens.

1. Standard lenses are relatively small

Standard lenses are easy to design and make. The optical quality is superb. They are not big lenses and don’t require as many raw materials as larger lenses. They are inexpensive to manufacturer and the savings are passed onto the buyer.

But that doesn’t mean you should buy the cheapest standard lens you can find. You also need to take build quality, autofocus performance and weatherproofing into account when buying a standard lens. That $ 100 standard lens may look like a bargain, but you could easily end up wishing you had bought something better.

The small size of standard lenses is good news if you are going to be walking around for hours at a time taking photos. The lighter your kit the more energy you will have for photography.

Smaller lenses are also more unobtrusive when taking photos of people in the street. If you use a telephoto lens and point it towards somebody it’s obvious that you are taking a photo of them. But use a standard lens and you could be taking a photo of a building, the street, or the scene in general. You can take a photo of somebody without pointing the camera directly at them (as long as you’re not too close). You are much more likely to be ignored.

Why You Should Use a Standard Lens for Street Photography

I made this photo in Hangzhou, China with a standard lens. The girls didn’t notice me. It helped that they were totally engrossed in what they were doing.

3. Standard lenses have wide apertures

This is good news if you work in low light or like to use wide apertures for creative effect. If you like bokeh you’ll love using a standard lens. I used a wide aperture on my standard lens to make this photo. I deliberately focused on the dragon’s head and blurred the background.

Why You Should Use a Standard Lens for Street Photography

4. You can focus close to the subject

Most standard lenses are capable of focusing quite closely to the subject. That means you can take close-up photos without having to change lenses or use an extension tube or close-up lens. This ability, combined with the wide aperture, make standard lenses incredibly versatile.

You can step back from the subject and take a photo that includes plenty of the scene. Likewise, you can move in close and take a close-up. You can open up the aperture and create bokeh, or stop it down and get much more of the scene in focus.

The close focusing ability of a standard lens helps you create a variety of images that show both the entire scene to small details and everything in-between. It’s a great tool for building a body of work around your subject. I used my standard lens to create both these images below, taken in the same building in Beijing, China.

Why You Should Use a Standard Lens for Street Photography

5. Standard lenses teach you to see

When you use the same lens for an extended period of time you get to know it really well. You’ll understand how it sees the scene. You’ll know what to expect in terms of perspective and depth of field, and how that changes as you get closer to the subject.

There is nothing wrong with zoom lenses, but they add an extra element to the photo taking process as you have to decide what focal length to use. An 18-55mm kit lens, for example, can be very useful. But there’s also a dramatic difference between the 18mm and 55mm focal lengths in terms of composition and angle of view. Deciding which focal length to use wastes precious time, especially in a situation where something interesting is happening.

For example, in China, I often didn’t have much time to think. Something happened in front of me, like this boy posing for a photo, and I had to react quickly. A prime lens helped me do that as I didn’t have to think about focal length.

Why You Should Use a Standard Lens for Street Photography

With a standard lens (or any prime) you are committed to that focal length. You don’t have the option to zoom in or out. You can only change the framing by moving closer to or farther away from your subject. It simplifies the photo taking process and helps you create photos with simpler, stronger compositions.

6. Standard lenses occupy the middle ground

Telephoto lenses are great for taking photos of people from a distance, but photos taken with them can lack a feeling of intimacy as they are shot from a distance. It’s also harder to stop down and get the background in focus as well.

Wide-angle lenses are a real challenge as they tend to include too much of the background. It’s hard to create a simplified composition with a wide-angle lens, especially in the street where lots of things happen that are outside your control. You also need to get much closer to your subject, and may need to invade their personal space. It’s hard to do this and not have the subject react to you in some way.

Standard lenses occupy a good middle ground between these two extremes. You can get close to your subject without getting too close. You can create simpler and stronger compositions than you can with a wide-angle lens, but can still stop down and keep the background sharp.

This photo is a good example. I was fairly close to this couple. But, I if had been using a wide-angle lens I would have had to get even closer, invading their personal space and changing the dynamic. A photo taken with a telephoto lens would have a greater sense of distance and separation from the couple. In either case, I wouldn’t have made a photo capturing a candid expression like this.

Why You Should Use a Standard Lens for Street Photography

Your turn

What lenses do you like to use for street and travel photography? Are standard lenses part of your kit or do you prefer something else? Let us know in the comments – it will be interesting to see which lenses DPS readers prefer to use.

Andrew is the author of the ebook The Candid Portrait.

The post 6 Reasons Why You Should Use a Standard Lens for Street Photography by Andrew S. Gibson appeared first on Digital Photography School.


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on 6 Reasons Why You Should Use a Standard Lens for Street Photography

Posted in Photography

 

Nikon D7500: Should I upgrade from my D7200?

17 Apr

D7500 vs D7200

The D7500 is Nikon’s latest enthusiast DSLR that gains a handful of components and refinements from the higher-end D500. However, it’s also a model that loses a couple of features in order to leave a more decisive gap between the two models.

So where does that leave existing D7200 owners? It’s fairly unusual for successive models to offer enough of a change to provide a significant upgrade, so does the D7500 do that? For that matter, should would-be buyers try to pick up the last of the D7200s, while they’re cheap?

Image quality

For all the hoopla about better image quality, we’ve seen little significant difference between this 20MP chip (when it appeared in the D500) compared with the 24MP sensor in the D7200. The differences that do exist become visible in side-by-side comparison at extremely high ISO settings, but don’t expect a significant uptick in noise or dynamic range performance in return for the slight cut in resolution.

The D7500’s highest native ISO rises by 1EV and its extension settings keep going to a dizzying Hi 5, which is equivalent to ISO 1.6 million (I’m not going to speculate about how Nikon’s engineers celebrated when they achieved this milestone), but the main benefits of this chip appear to be readout speed, rather than significant differences in image quality.

Autofocus improvements

For us, one of the most significant factors will be how closely the D7500 can match the D500’s autofocus. It gains the much higher resolution metering sensor used for subject tracking, along with nominally the same processing (though Nikon’s Expeed naming system doesn’t necessarily mean they have the same chip).

However, the D7500 doesn’t gain the AF module from the D500, which means it can only offer 51 AF points (15 of which are cross-type), rather than 153 points, 99 of which are cross-type. This also means it misses out on the incredibly broad AF coverage that the D500 offers.

Even so, the processing and meter module should ensure the autofocus and, in particular, the subject tracking, works better than the already rather good D7200. It remains to be seen whether it can match the uncannily good performance of the D500.

Autofocus auto fine-tune

One of the nice features to make its way down to the D7500 is the Auto AF fine-tune system. This allows you to set the focus precisely in live view such that the camera can then check this against the results of its separate phase detection AF module. Any difference is captured as a correction value.

This is a useful addition since it allows the user of the camera to calibrate their lenses without the considerable degree of trial and error required with the D7200’s AF fine-tune system (which essentially required that you guess and check a correction value).

The autofocus fine-tune system isn’t a panacea: it applies a single correction value for all focus points, so will not necessarily improve the performance of off-center focus points, which tend to be less reliable, particularly with lenses that exhibit spherical aberration.

High-speed shooting

Obviously the biggest change with the D7500 is the move from six frame per second to eight frame per second shooting. This isn’t a match for the D500’s 10 fps shooting but it’s likely to be enough for a lot of people. Hell, this is around the level of performance that the world’s best sports shooters used around 2005.

As well as 8 fps shooting, the D7500 has a buffer nearly three times deeper than the D7200’s. 50 uncompressed 14-bit Raws in a burst is likely to be enough for all but the most demanding action shooters.

4K Video

The D7500 brings 4K UHD video recording and, assuming it looks like the D500’s output, it’s pretty good. It’s taken from a 1.5x crop of the sensor, meaning it’s using sub-Four Thirds sized sensor region, which means you won’t get the ‘Super 35’ style noise or depth-of-field characteristics that other APS-C cameras can offer. The significant crop also means your lenses will offer a significantly less wide field of view when shooting. A standard Nikon 18-something DX zoom will start at a fairly restrictive 40mm equivalent field of view.

Just as significantly as the addition of 4K is the gain of power aperture, which means you can change aperture in live view mode on the D7500. On the 7200 it’s a dance of dropping out of live view, changing the aperture and then jumping back in again, with no way at all to change it once you’ve hit REC.

Backwards compatibility takes a step backwards

The D7500 also loses a little in the way of backwards compatibility. Nikon has tried to keep its F mount as backwards compatible as possible, even as it’s added more modern features. The D7X00 series has, for some time now, been the lowest level of Nikon to retain a screw drive for older AF-D lenses but the D7500 sees another small element of compatibility chipped away. Specifically, the tab that checks what aperture old ‘AI’ lenses are set to (pictured, center) has been removed, meaning the camera can only use manual exposure mode with these lenses, with no aperture priority option.

For most users, this is likely to be irrelevant (manual focusing using the viewfinder focusing screen of a DX DSLR isn’t the most life affirming process), but it does mean anyone with an older lens collection will need to think about the D500 as their next step, and it’ll be another factor to consider when scouring eBay.

SnapBridge

The D7500 gains the SnapBridge system that uses a constant Bluetooth LE connection to auto-transfer 2MP images or keep the hailing frequencies open for when you want to use Wi-Fi.

We remain unconvinced by SnapBridge, especially in terms of what it offers the higher-end, more shutter-button-happy user, but it’s not necessarily worse than the D7200’s system. That may sound like damning with faint praise but, until Nikon develops more distinct ways of using SnapBridge, we feel it’s better suited to the D5600 user than it is to the more demanding enthusiast user of the D7500.

Still, the D7500 does gain a batch in-camera Raw conversion system, which we’re hoping will work well in conjunction with SnapBridge to provide an effective Raw + Wi-Fi workflow. Time will tell.

Flip-up touchscreen

The D7500 gains a flip-up/down touchscreen. The flip screen is likely to be handy for video shooting but, with underwhelming video autofocus and no sign of the D5600’s ability to use the rear panel as an AF point touchpad, we don’t think the touch sensitivity of the screen is less exciting. Sure, the D5600’s touchpad implementation only really worked for photographers who put their right eye to the viewfinder, but that at least made it a major benefit for those users.

The LCD panel itself has also changed, but don’t read too much into the lower dot count. The new panel may only be 922k dots, rather than 1.2 million, but the difference is that there is no longer a white ‘dot’ making up each pixel: they’re both displaying 640 x 480 pixels.

Battery life/battery type

The D7500’s battery life rating has fallen 15%, compared with the D7200, presumably as a result of the demands of the faster processor and possibly less energy-efficient screen.

It uses a new version of the EN-EL15 battery called the EN-EL15a. Other than coming in a lighter grey plastic case, Nikon was unable to give specifics about what’s changed. Our assumption is that it’s just Nikon making it easier to distinguish between the newest versions of the EN-EL15 and the older ones which don’t seem to get on with its newest cameras.

However, this is where you see another attempt to put more clear water between the D7500 and the D500: the 7500 no longer has a port for connecting to a battery grip. So you’ll need to stick with your D7200 or jump to the D500 if you regularly shoot beyond the capacity of a single battery or appreciate the improved ergonomics for portrait orientation shooting.

Is this really the D7200 replacement?

Yes. Absolutely.

While it’s true that the D7500 isn’t a step up from the D7200 in every last respect, it follows the D7X00 pattern in every way that matters. Twin dials, screw drive, large prism viewfinder and comparable price point. Nikon will, naturally, say that the D7200 and D7500 will sit alongside one another, but that’s what manufacturers say to avoid devaluing any stock left in retail channels.

However, it’s important to bear in mind that when the D7200 was launched, it sat at the top of Nikon’s DX lineup, whereas the D7500 has to slot in beneath the D500. Inevitably that means some users will be better served by stepping up a tier, but we don’t think it’ll inconvenience a significant number of users. 64, 128 or 256GB cards offer plenty of capacity and card errors are rare enough that a second card slot isn’t a vital feature. The D7500 is still a camera that shoots faster and for longer, and can capture better video than its predecessor, so it’s not like Nikon’s evil marketing department has left would-be D7X00 users out in the cold.

Should I upgrade?

To a large extent, the degree to which we’d recommend upgrading from the D7200 to the D7500 will depend on how its new AF system performs. If you’ve already been thinking about a camera with faster performance, though, then take a look at our D500 vs D7500 comparison: the D500 will give you a bigger performance boost.

If your needs are less action driven, it’s a much harder call and, unless the AF performance turns out to be great, the answer has to be that it’s probably not worth it. However, if you own a D7000 or even a D7100 that’s starting to show its age, the D7500 offers a host of benefits, not least better dynamic range, faster shooting and a much deeper buffer.

Overall, then the D7500 isn’t better than the D7200 in every respect, but it’s at least a little better in most of the ways that will matter to most people. But, while the last of the D7200s are available at end-of-life prices, it’s worth thinking about how much the extra features are worth, to you.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Nikon D7500: Should I upgrade from my D7200?

Posted in Uncategorized

 
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »