Nikon D810

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: Behold with cautious optimism.

Counter Opinion: I know what I'm risking by saying this, but I'll say it anyway – Nikon has gotten the D810 right. Sadly it's a truism that Nikon has the ability to screw up the most surprising and basic things, even on simple model refreshes, so that sound you hear may indeed be the other shoe dropping. But, for now, I'm going to call this a win.

When I first saw the D810 details, my initial thought was that Nikon had improved the D800, but that not being good enough was never that camera's problem. Now I'm thinking that Nikon has taken the D800 and done what Canon did to the 5D2: there are no huge headline-grabbing changes – except to the price – but everything has been made better. The price is high, yes, but to some people it will be worth it. There's nothing better for even close to the same amount of money.

Some noise has been made about the D810 being made in Thailand instead of Japan. I can't say that there's any deficiency in its build quality when compared to the D800 that I've been using for years. The grip is a big improvement over the D800, being at least as nice as the D700, with a deeper finger groove and a real thumb ridge. Even the button that's used to change AF mode has had some extra texture added to make it easier to find and press.

The control interface has been tweaked and loses nothing in the process. The bracketing button, which was removed from the cloverleaf, has found a new home near the flash controls. The OVF information display is a friendlier pale blue instead of LED Green. The LCD is better, and manually focusing in Live View is easier. The left-side port covers have been improved and the port placement has been rethought. The shutter sound is strikingly quieter and much more subdued. Everything is better.

There are lots of features that I can't evaluate but are still very promising. Nikon's metering has always been good, so the highlight-priority weighting could be very useful. Being able to magnify two different parts of the scene to check for focus and composition would have made my most recent series almost too easy to photograph – most of my best work is done with a tilt-shift lens. The electronic first-curtain shutter for Live View and Mirror Up mode is also a very positive change for extracting maximum quality from a camera that's designed for it.

The D700 was a great and much-loved camera, but the D810 replaces it for everything except the very fastest frame rates that it could hit with the EN-EL4a or AA batteries in its grip. Hard drives are cheap. The D810 is simply the best camera out there right now south of the Pentax 645Z – we know this because the D800 was the best sub-10K camera last week, and the D810 is better than that.

The D810 is still only a mid-cycle update, so I wouldn't consider it as a replacement for working D800/E cameras, despite my being slightly jealous of how nice the new machine is. If I photographed events I might be tempted to spend the extra money just for the quieter shutter, though – it really is a big difference. But even without being a D810 buyer I'm incredibly pleased that Nikon seems to have this one figured out. After watching them fumble through the V-series and Coolpix A I had my doubts about their abilities to design and make cameras, and I may want to replace my D800 with another Nikon some day.

But then again, that other shoe still hasn't been heard from yet.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 18 july 2014

First Impressions: Nikon Df

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 1 out of 5
Yeah, but: A v1.0 product with 50 years of history.

Counter Opinion: I hated the Nikon Df from the moment I picked it up. The handgrip is awkward, the front dial is impossible to turn, and the camera feels far less valuable than its price tag should require. I wasn't one of those who was stoked with pre-launch enthusiasm, so the strength of my adverse reaction caught me by surprise.

My reaction would have been much milder if I hadn't spent the weekend with my D800, which is the current pinnacle of design engineering that the Df superficially rejects. And there are some distinct disadvantages that the size and shape of the Df (pronounced "df") has when compared to the FX D-hundreds series. The battery is the smaller EN-EL14, inherited from the entry-level SLRs, and its single lonely SD card also lives inside the battery compartment. The round eyepiece says "pro", but the details disagree.

But as I handled the Df more, my objections diminished. The handgrip can't be held with a fist, the way the D-number series is, but instead is held between thumb and middle finger, like a flat-fronted camera. Or, to cite a more tragic digital precedent, like the Sony A330/380. I do still wish that the fake-leather-texture plastic was a grippy material, like on the D800, instead of hard, like on the Canon Rebel T3. No, not T3i. T3.

The front dial of the Df is something I really had a hard time with. It's incredibly difficult to turn and hard to reach. But a few seconds in the menu is really all that's needed to switch the aperture control from the front to the back dial, which makes the problem go away. Except for changing certain setup parameters, such as from single-point to all-area AF, there's not all that much that needs both dials. Exposure compensation has its own dial, as does shutter speed. What else is there?

Thankfully the Df does retain the extremely useful auto-iso ability despite having a dedicated iso dial. It works exactly the same as on the button-and-dial Nikons, with the auto-iso menu setting defining the upper limit, and a user-selectable minimum iso that can be set through the dial. So in auto-iso mode the fancy physical control only sets the iso floor, which rarely needs to be changed, but it is nice to have it right there on top of the camera where we can keep an eye on it. And I suppose auto-iso could be turned off, should it be necessary.

I'm not buying a Df: it doesn't suit my needs, it doesn't play well with my Nikons F5, D800, or V1, and if I want a pure photography experience I'll run a roll of film through my m-mount Zeiss Ikon. My uniformed opinion is that it's over-priced; some retailers are already quietly discounting it despite it being less than a week old. But after spending more time with it I have no doubt that the Df is going to turn out to be a really great camera that completely suits some people. It's just too bad that Nikon has trained people to wait for the Christmas price-drop, or the inevitable iteration, before committing to it. Nikon simply hasn't sparked the passion that the Fuji X-series inspires.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 30 nov 2013

Brief Impressions: Ricoh GR

Concept: TBA
Execution: TBA
Yeah, but: More to come when I know anything useful.

Counter Opinion: Today I spent a brief amount of time with the New Ricoh GR, and I'm as determined as ever to buy one. True, my hands-on time was less than twenty minutes, but when I had a chance to try the 'Coolpix A' I set it back down after just a fraction of that, impressed at the concept but uninspired by its execution. Button-and-dial EV comp? No thanks, I prefer to spend my time taking pictures.

The GR that I used, like all of the ones that people have been writing about so far, was a late preproduction unit without final firmware. Unlike some bloggers, I'm not about to attempt a definitive or comparative analysis of image quality and performance, especially as its DNG raw files are still waiting for proper profiles from Adobe. However, as a newly-minited Ricoh GR Digital owner nothing I saw made me unhappy.

The GR is slightly longer than the GR Digital IV, but that's an improvement, not a demerit. There's more finger room around the front grip, and the camera feels better than the Girdiv in my average-sized hands. It remains a small camera, and isn't bigger-enough to make a practical difference for carry; while the camera is also a little thicker than the previous model, it can still be tucked in a back pocket when it's not in use. Finding a good case might be a challenge, but it's one I'm happy to accept.

The lens has only one extending section versus the GRD-IV's two, and seems less point-and-shooty when the camera is powered on. But rather than looking more 'serious', a la Fuji X100, I think the look is more reminiscent of an unthreatening film camera. I could absolutely see bringing the GR as my only digital camera for my annual summer-starting trip to New York City, should I be lucky enough to own one by then.

The biggest operational difference between the GRD-IV and the New GR is the macro mode. While the GR isn't bad – nothing at all like the Canon G1x – because the two cameras look and feel the same I kept trying to get too close for the new kid. As a result I can see an Eye-Fi equipped Girdiv becoming my camera of choice for easy product review photos, such as these ones, while the GR does the real work.

In terms of speed I couldn't feel much difference between the IV and the New GR / GRD-V models, with AF being pretty snappy on both. The GR seems like a bit of an improvement in pretty much all areas, and I have remarkably few complaints about the old one, so that works just fine for me. I'm looking forward to having this camera to call my own.

Quick links to the other chapters in the GR saga:

Ricoh GR: Travel

Ricoh GR: Preface

Ricoh GR: Buttons

Ricoh GR: Experience

Ricoh GR: Quality

Ricoh GV1 Viewfinder

Ricoh GR Brief Impressions

Ricoh GRD4 Review

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 10 may 2013

The Canon T5i Rebel

Concept: 1 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Canon T5i Rebel don't care.

Counter Opinion: This is the Canon T5i Rebel. Watch it run in slow motion. It's pretty bad-ass.

Look, it runs all over the place. "Woah, watch out!" says that Pentax. Ew it's got a Nikon? Oh, it's chasing a Sony? Oh my gosh! Oh the Canon T5i Rebels are just flippy!

The Canon T5i Rebel's been referred to by the Guinness Book of World Records as the most fearless camera in all the camera kingdom. It really doesn't give a shit. If it's hungry, it's hungry – ew what's that in its mouth? Oh it's got a Nikon? Oh it runs backwards? Now watch this, look, a Nikon's up in a tree. Canon T5i Rebel don't care. Canon T5i Rebel don't give a shit, it just takes what it wants. Whenever it's hungry it just – ew! And it eats Nikons?

Oh my God watch it dig. Look at that digging. The Canon T5i Rebel's really pretty bad-ass. They have no regard for any other camera whatsoever. Look at him just grunting and – ew! Eating Nikons! Ew what's that, a Fujifilm? Oh that's nasty. Oh, they're so nasty! Oo look! It's chasing things, and eating them.

The Canon T5i Rebels have a fairly long body, but a distinctly thick set, broad shoulders, and you know, their, their skin is loose, allowing them to move about freely, they twist around. Now look, here's a house full of Panasonics. You think the Canon T5i Rebel cares? It doesn't give a shit. It goes right into the house of Panasonics to get some Olympus.

How disgusting is that? It eats Olympus. Ew, that's so nasty.

But look, the Canon T5i Rebel doesn't care, it's getting stung like a thousand times. It doesn't give a shit, it just, it's hungry. It doesn't care about being stung by Panasonics. Nothing can stop the Canon T5i Rebel when it's hungry.

Oh what a nasty fuck! Look! Ew, it's eating Olympus, that's disgusting. There it is running in slow motion again. See?

Now what's interesting is that other, other cameras like these Pentax here, they just like to wait around until the Canon T5i Rebel's done eating and then it swoops in to pick up the scraps. It says, "You do all the work for us Canon T5i Rebel and we'll just eat whatever you find, how's that? What do you say, stupid?"

Look at this Pentax. "Thanks for the treat, stupid!" "Hey, come back here" says the Canon T5i Rebel. Pentaxes don't care, and you know what, the Sonys do it, too. Look at these little Cybershots. They're like, "Thanks, Stupid! Thanks for the Fujifilm! See ya later!" The Canon T5i Rebel does all the work while these other cameras just pick up the scraps.

At night time, the Canon T5i Rebel goes hunting, cuz it's hungry. Look! Here comes a fierce battle between a Nikon and a Canon T5i Rebel. I wonder what will happen? Look at this, there's the Canon T5i Rebel just eating a Fujifilm. And then look. "Get away from me!" says the Nikon, "Get away from me!"

Canon T5i Rebel don't care. Canon T5i Rebel smacks the shit out of it. The Nikon comes back and it lashes right at the Canon T5i Rebel. Oh! Little does the Canon T5i Rebel know, FYI, it's been stung! It's been bitten by the Nikon, so while it's eating the Nikon – ew, that's disgusting – meanwhile the poisonous venom is seeping through the Canon T5i Rebel's body, and it passes out.

Look at that sleepy fuck.

Now the Canon T5i Rebel's just gonna pass out for a few minutes and then it's gonna get right back up and start eating all over again, cuz it's a hungry little bastard. Look at this! Like nothing happened, the Canon T5i Rebel gets right back up and continues eating the Nikon! How disgusting. And of course, what does a Canon T5i Rebel have to eat for the next few weeks? Nikon.

The Canon T5i Rebel.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.

As always, viewer discretion is advised.

Last updated 22 apr 2013

Olympus 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II

M.Zuiko MSC 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II zoom (photo Olympus)

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Here we go again...

The Long Version: You're looking at the Mark II version of Olympus' only long native µ4:3rds zoom lens of any description. You can look over at Olympus' older 4:3rds mount lenses and note Olympus has at least three to choose from; the SG 70-300mm 1:4-5.6, the HG 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 and the SHG 90-250mm 1:2.8. Unfortunately, not so much choice with µ4:3rds.

In the beginning all µ4:3rds Olympus zooms stopped at 150mm (14-150mm 1:4-5.6 and 40-150mm 1:4-5.6). It wasn't until the original 75-300mm was released 31 August 2010 that Olympus had a "real" zoom that gave the Pen user a long focal length that at least matched the 4:3rds reach. The problem with the original 75-300mm was the initial MSRP of $900, for what was perceived by many (including me) as small and optically slow, especially at 300mm. I for one even refused to consider buying the lens because of the cost, its slow speed (especially when compared to the 50-200mm for just $200 more) and the unforgivable lack of weather sealing, especially for a lens that cost that much.

Original M.Zuiko MSC 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 zoom (photo Olympus)

At the time of the original zoom's release I was greatly unimpressed, so much that I even refused to go to a nearby camera store and even try it out.

Time passed and it would appear that the original 75-300mm languished on many a store shelf. Panasonic released it's own long zoom, the Lumix 100-300mm 1:4-5.6 zoom. The Panasonic zoom was interesting in that it was a half to two-thirds of a stop faster at both ends. Depending on who's review you read, it would appear that the Zuiko might have an edge in overall image quality, but then the Panasonic was good enough and was (and continues to be) offered for a mere $500, $400 less than the Olympus equivalent. A large majority have voted with their pocketbooks and purchased the Panasonic, while a very few, such as Torontowide, have embraced the 75-300mm and created quite good work with it. Yet here we are, 2+ years after its initial release, with the second version close to the Panasonic 100-300mm in price. Things that make you go "hmmm".

I actually need at least a 200mm native µ4:3rds lens, and the 75-300mm II is at least inexpensive enough to pull me into a camera store to try it out. Even though the optical speed is still the same slow values as before, the release of the Olympus E-M5 with excellent image quality all the way to ISO 3200 takes some of the sting out of the slowness of the zoom. Granted I would love to purchase a native µ4:3rds equivalent to the 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5, I can live with a zoom that's one stop down from that.

Here's one for anyone who's listening in Olympus' marketing department: I would have paid $900 for the Mark I if it had been 1:4-5.6, it had come with a lens hood, and if it had been weather sealed. In fact, if they'd kept the price for the Mark II as the same for the Mark I and added weather sealing (and a lens hood) it would have drawn my credit card out of my wallet. I swear it appears form the outside that the Olympus lens engineering group and the body engineering group don't talk to one another. The E-M5 was released a year ago January 2012, which means that this new release could have been the third weather sealed lens to go with the E-M5, along with the 12-50mm and the 60mm macro. It isn't the amount of money I object to spending, it's the value for money spent. The older 75-300mm just didn't have a high enough value for the asking price, while the Mark II just barely based on the printed specifications...

I will probably try out the Mark II when it arrives on local camera store shelves, but I will not pre-order one. I'll put it on my E-M5 body and see how it performs. If its IQ is reasonable, especially at 200mm and beyond, then I'll more than likely purchase a copy. If anything, all Olympus has done is convince me to give the Mark II a try, something I never did with the Mark I.

Update 2 February

Call me fickle. I went to my local camera shop, the one that has the Mark I in black. They pulled it out and handed it to me to look at, and I have to admit it was very well built and of very high physical quality. Every seam was tight, and with the barrel fully extended to 300mm there was no play in the inner barrel. I almost broke down and and purchased it right there except someone had left a scratch (a rather noticeable divot, actually) on the front element. I guess the universe really doesn't want me to own this lens.

last updated 2 feb 2013

Canon Powershot G15

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Warranty honoured – crisis averted.

Counter Opinion: I had a scare a couple of weeks ago – my Canon S100 stopped working, leaving me without a decent compact camera in the middle of a vacation. I immediately started an emergency round of camera-shopping, and thought a lot about what I had learned in over eighteen months of carrying and using a compact camera every day. While I wasn't too fond of Canon at the time, the Canon G15 was simply too good to ignore.

The G15 – pronounced G-one-five in honour of the G-one-x – is a smaller camera than the G11/12 was, mostly because it has lost the flip-out LCD screen. While I do like that the camera is now almost slim enough to put in a pocket, I really hate that the flippy screen is gone.

Let's be honest: Canon's G1x experiment has been a failure. It's big, clunky, and slow; the improved image quality has proven insufficient to overcome its limitations and price. But it has a flip-out screen. Removing the flippy screen from the G15 feels churlish – the marketing equivalent of Canon taking their ball and sulking home. We've already seen Canon intentionally stripping away features to create a cheaper counterpart for their entry-level SLRs, but doing it to their once-premium compact camera is just plain mean.

But there's a practical and objectively sensible reason to resent the removal of the flippy screen from the G-One-Five as well: this camera is legitimately good at 'macro' photography. (Which, incidentally, is a huge shortcoming with the G-One-X.) Canon's G-series has long been known for their touching-the-lens focusing ability, but the reproduction ratios on earlier models would quickly fall off as the focal length gets longer. Shooting close-ups at wide angles is great for special effects, with wildly exaggerated perspective and proportions, but a more realistic look needed close-up filters on an adapter.

The G15 mostly solves this problem, keeping a good close-focusing ability through most of its zoom range. This makes for photos of small subjects with a much more realistic sense of proportion, and lets them be taken from a more reasonable working distance. A flip-out screen would make the G15 an automatic purchase for anyone who does tabletop small-product photography, but instead I'm left with the prospect of recommending the Nikon P7700. A Coolpix. I can't believe the world has come to this.

Aside from that one huge and glaringly massive shortcoming, there's a lot to like about the G15. It's not actually all that much bigger than the S110, and it doesn't have a touch screen, which is enough of a reason to pick it over its smaller cousin all on its own. Interestingly, the G15 also lacks antennas for GPS and WiFi, so the short list of features that will appear with the next model is pretty clear.

The G15 retains the lousy optical viewfinder that has graced every G-series camera since the sequence began, which remains slightly better than nothing even as it's one of the last cameras that includes one at all. Canon isn't winning a lot of innovation awards recently, but there's a lot to be said for reassuring predictability.

The other signature of the G-series, and larger advanced compact cameras that follow its lead, is ample exterior controls. These are useful and appreciated, although dedicating a button to changing the metering mode seems like an odd choice. And for the life of me I can't figure out why nobody – not Canon, Fuji, or Nikon – has thought to put a stronger detent under the "0" position on their exposure compensation dials. Sadly, the G15 remains a compact camera to be looked at and worked around rather than a photographic tool that can be used seamlessly and reflexively.

One positive trait about the G15 that really stands out is its speed. It's not going to replace an SLR, but there's a definite snappiness to it that my S100 lacks. The lens is also a huge improvement over the status quo: even it its full extension it's a relatively bright f/2.8, but it still escapes the need for a lens cap that hobbles its bright-lensed competitors from Panasonic and Olympus. This keeps the G15 in the realm of one-handed pocket cameras, which is why I would consider it as a worthy replacement for my S100.

The other reason why I'd stay with Canon for a pocketable camera is its "Safety Shift" over-exposure protection. It's one of those little things that barely merits a mention elsewhere, but coupled with the built-in neutral density filter, it opened up a whole new range of long exposure photography options for me. Since I don't expect a pocket camera to be able to do high-quality work, and the G15 is no exception, it might as well be fun.

But my flirting with the G15 came to nothing. Canon decided that my faulty S100 was covered under warranty, so I won't be needing a new point-and-shoot after all. With my pocketable camera needs covered for the foreseeable future I've found myself thinking about the Panasonic GX1 – about the same size as the G15, and the body is actually cheaper, but with substantially better image quality. Maybe there is going to be a new daily-carry camera in my future after all.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 12 nov 2012

Canon Powershot S110

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: The S100 was the series apex so far.

Counter Opinion: Today I met the Canon Powershot S110 for the first time. I own and really enjoy the S100 – my full S100 review is here – so I'll jump straight to my executive summary: assuming the slower f/2.0~5.9 lens can be tolerated then the S110 remains an excellent choice despite its modest differences, and even fewer improvements, from the S100.

Feel free to stop reading now if you like, but as always, I do have some subjective opinions as well.

First, the paper changes: A Wi-Fi antenna replaces the built-in GPS. The geo-tagging feature is one that I've left enabled on my S100, but fewer than 600 out of my 4300 photos show any location data, and I know some of it is wildly incorrect. On the other hand, wifi connectivity is something that I had with my eye-fi SD card, but I stopped using it because its power draw was unsustainable with the little NB-5L battery that the S100 and S110 both use. I'll call that change between the models a draw, pending word on how well Canon's engineers have handled the power management problem, but for now I'd keep that card reader handy. (Having a second battery is just good hygiene.)

The touch screen is well done. I like that it's a consistent and natural interface that lets menu items be selected directly through the screen as well as with buttons, while the menu structure and options still remain essentially unchanged across the past decade. That's a huge plus. The touch-to-focus feature was fun the first time, but by the fifth time it was frustrating: every time I picked the camera up I would change the focus zone. That would be the second thing I'd want to disable if I ever bought this camera – right after the sounds, but before the AF Assist lamp – but that's not an option. The touch-screen and touch-to-focus appears to be a mandatory feature.

I also suspect that the autofocus is just a smidge faster than it is on the S100, but I can't prove it; unfortunately I haven't been able to test the S110 in low light, where the S100 tends to embarrass itself.

Physical changes: People must have really loved the handling of the S90 and S95, because the finger grip that Canon added to the S100 is gone again with the S110. The black version at least has a grippy finish, but the new-for-2012 white option is slick paint. Counteracting that is a better thumb rest, but it shouldn't be an either/or choice. Richard Franiec is going to love this camera.

Another ergonomic problem that must have plagued the S100 was the easy-to-find power button, because it has been moved slightly and made smaller. The back panel functions have remained the same, but the domed buttons of the S100 have been replaced by flat buttons that are harder to find by feel. The S110's profile is also slightly boxier than the 90/95/100, and it has had the jimping ridges along the ring control and mode dial replaced with some industrial-style knurling. This provides something of a stylistic tie-in to the Canon G1x, which is an odd choice considering its sales success. Or lack thereof. Overall, I have to say that the S110 avoids the slightly luxurious feel of the S100.

My two biggest complaints about my S100 haven't been resolved. The ring control is still laggy – the camera isn't able to 'stack' commands, so if it can't call up the on-screen indicator for what the ring controls, then turning it has no effect. The other problem is the f/5.9 aperture at the telephoto end of its lens range. With those two hanging over it the S110 remains a camera to be anticipated and compensated for, and no matter how good it is, it doesn't overcome being a point-and-shoot.

And the world changes: Canon pulled off a cute trick with the S100: they snuck in an extra generation that Olympus and Panasonic didn't have an answer to. That newness made the S100 better than the XZ1 and LX5, and its smallness ensured that it appealed strongly to a market all on its own. Today the Olympus XZ2 remains big, Panasonic has gone the wrong direction with the LX7, and Nikon – never a serious competitor with its compacts – has chosen this moment to G7-ify its P310 and remove its raw mode. The G15 and X10 are both much bigger cameras, and don't really play in the same space as the S-series.

The only real competition that I see in the pocketable high-IQ category is the unreleased Fuji XF1. I've been able to use one and was impressed, and it's certainly an upcoming camera to watch for, although it will be hard to justify its launch price. Finally, there's also the Sony RX100, but calling that 'competition' to the S110 is being kind – it's in its own class as far as both quality and cost is concerned, even though it's only slightly larger than the S110. If the price isn't an issue, then the RX100 is an easy call; if it is an issue, then the S110 is also an easy call. That's not a bad way to solve a dilemma.

I can't say that the S110 is the best on the market any more, but if you can't find an S100, it's not a bad substitute.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 5 oct 2012

Nikon D600

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: I'm not buying one.

Counter Opinion: The more is see and handle the Nikon D600 the more impressed I am. I'm having a hard time imagining a better entry into Nikon's world.

Yes, it's expensive, but not overwhelmingly so. Today the D600 and 24-85mm lens costs a little less than what my first SLR did, which was the Olympus E-1 with 14-54mm lens, and I used that for years with just the addition of a cheap macro lens. That's not a bad deal.

Alternatively, buy the D600 body and add the trio of new f/1.8 primes (28, 50, 85) for an awesomely capable set that's still not that big or expensive. Swap one of those fast primes for a macro – the 50/1.8G for 60/2.8G, or 85/1.8G for 105VR – and that base is covered; add an SB-700 flash, a couple of SD cards, and don't buy anything else for a half-decade.

As a D800 owner, I do still see the value in the heavier iron. The higher top shutter speed and flash sync speeds are things that I've used just this week, and printing 16x20" photos at a little over 300dpi certainly doesn't suck. I also already own an MC-30 ten-pin remote, so that's a cost savings right there. Although I am jealous of the D600's ability to use the non-astronomically-priced ML-L3 wireless remote – life's a barter.

In an odd digression from their recent design trend, the shutter button on the D600 isn't as aggressively sloped as on their other 2012 cameras. I'm not sure that it means anything, but it does suggest that the D600 was in development before the new ergonomics were nailed down for the D4/800/3200 designs. Coupled with the D600's quick availability it's fairly clear that Nikon was sitting on skids of these in anticipation of Photokina – and the hubbub over the D800 dying down.

There are a couple of clues that makes me think that the D600 is the FX companion to the D7000 rather than a D800-lite. One big one is that the D600 uses the MC-DC2 remote instead of the ten-pin connector of the 'pro' series. This suggests that the D800 also needs a 'pro' DX companion that could finally replace the D300s, in the same way that the D700/D300 worked together. I could see the difference in control layouts between the D800 and D600 being enough to discourage people from using those two as a pair. As it stands, though, the image zoom in/out buttons are reversed from the D7000, as they are on the D800 and D4 compared to their predecessors, so clearly a model bump in the D7X00 line is in order.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, IQ: I haven't scrutinized it but have no doubt that it'll be excellent. DxOmark has already ranked its results among the best in the world – pushing the top Canon camera out of the top twelve in the process – but in all honesty, there's hasn't been a truly bad camera made in many years. The Olympus E-510 is the last one that comes to mind for me, with its ability to record about one stop of highlight detail above the midtone; if anyone knows of any more recent than that, please let me know.

The biggest D600 news for me is that Nikon has finally included a half-decent a thumb rest. It's not as good as the 5DmkII, but it's a sign that perhaps someone at Nikon has picked up a second-hand F5 from eBay. I do find the hand grip a little narrow, but the thumb ridge makes up for a lot. Including a 100% viewfinder is a strong statement about how highly Nikon thinks of this model, despite its lack of a round viewfinder; Canon missed that mark on its upcoming 6D 'competitor'. The D600's shutter is even a bit quieter than the one on the D800, which is another nice touch.

Nikon has built themselves a very appealing little camera.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 25 sep 2012

TONTA Lens2Scope

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: I docked a 'concept' point for the name.

Counter Opinion: I was intrigued from the moment I saw the remarkably functionally-named Lens2Scope, made by TONTA Electro Optical Co of Taiwan. Tonta also makes full spotting scopes, but the 'lens to scope' is just an eyepiece that attaches to various makes of lens – a different version for each mount – to make it easy for humans to look through them. It has pretty good eye relief and a prism to turn the image right-side-up, while focusing is handled by the lens. The Nikon-fit model that I tried is perfectly happy with both G and DX lenses.

A name that includes a cutesy numeral on something made of plastic always screams 'fly-by-night cheap' to me, so I was initially rather unimpressed and put off by the Lens2scope's $200 price. But using it with a Nikon 85/1.8D immediately and completely changed my opinion: the view was bright and crisp with a huge image circle. Of course camera lenses have excellent optics, and the Lens2Scope is only using a small part of the image circle, so perhaps I shouldn't have been so surprised at how good it was.

The way the numbers work with the Lens2Scope is to divide the focal length of the attached lens by 10 to determine its effective magnification, making my 85mm lens into an 8.5x power scope. The effective objective lens diameter is the physical aperture of the lens: remember that the "f" in "f/1.8" stands for focal length, so my 85/1.8 is essentially an 8.5x47 monocular. That rivals much bigger binoculars for both magnification and light-gathering, making the Lens2scope and 85mm quite compact by comparison.

The eyepiece also works with zoom lenses, and trying it with the 18-300mm was a lot of fun. Of course a darker lens means a darker image, and the higher the magnification – excuse me, the longer the focal length – the tighter the field of view. So a consumer zoom is functional and effective, while an f/2.8 zoom is very good. When coupled to a macro lens the scope adapter reportedly gives a 25x magnification at the lenses' 1:1 distance, which is not too shabby either. I can't say what the depth of field will be like, not having tried it, but I suspect that the Lens2Scope's little tripod mount could come in handy.

So the lens2scope definitely works. The next question has to be: for what? Anyone with a lens to attach it to probably already owns a compatible camera, and just looking through a lens is an odd thing for a photographer to do. But photographers have more than their fair share of odd behaviours, so I'm sure there will be people out there who would like to be able to turn a lens into a scope. People like me, for example.

I already own a small Zeiss 6x18 scope that I use to view prints presented to the critique group that I belong to – that's something like a camera club, but for photographers. So I actually know exactly where and how I'd use one of these lens toys. I'm eager to try it with my 60/2.8G lens, which becomes a 6x21, albeit a much bulkier combination than the little Zeiss 6x18. But the truth is that a 6x power can be a bit long for where I sit, making my 50/1.4G – 5x35 – a very, very interesting option. I'm pretty much sold on buying a Lens2scope even before I break out my old manual focus 135/2.8, which was an impulse buy against the possibility that it might be fun to have some day. It's nifty when things all work out like that.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 28 july 2012

Sony RX100

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Everything's relative.

Counter Opinion: It's funny the difference that packaging makes. Nikon made a mirrorless interchangeable-lens format with a 1" sensor and the internet decided that it's too small; Canon makes a compact camera with a sensor slightly larger than 4/3" and the camera is too large and too limited by its lens to really spark a lot of enduring interest. But with the RX100, Sony has combined the best of both ideas and come up with an excellent combination.

The Sony RX100 and Canon S100 share more than a passing resemblance, and while the Sony is larger, it's not larger enough to make any practical difference. While the Canon's lens is both longer and wider, it's not longer enough to be dramatically more useful, and the wider end just invites perspective and geometric distortion. If that's the sacrifice for the larger sensor of the RX100, it's a good one.

As good as the image quality from the S100 is, the RX100 promises to be significantly better. The twenty megapixel jpegs look excellent, and while I haven't yet been able to play with the raw files or use the camera under adverse conditions, I'm impressed. The camera is quick and easy to use – the absurdity of Sony's two different auto modes being no less ridiculous on this advanced a camera – and while it's not cheap, it should last for years.

I already own what is now the second-best pocketable point-and-shoot on the market, so I'm not in a hurry to upgrade. But the D800 has convinced me of the value of a larger pixel-dense sensor. I would love to have an RX100 as a companion to the big SLR, because it looks like this little thing is going to be capable of some serious work. Maybe when the next generation is out, and my S100 is a couple years old, it will be time for me to make the jump.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 28 july 2012

Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro (Nikon Mount)

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: Solid but unsexy.

Counter Opinion: I'm looking for a sharp short telephoto, and the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro is one that I've heard good things about. While I'm predisposed to the Nikon 60/2.8G – despite, not because of, having previously owned both the 150mm and 180mm Sigma macros – I decided to try the 70mm out in order to know more about my options.

Physically the 70/2.8 is substantial and well-built, justifying why Sigma EX lenses come with a decade-long warranty in Canada. The lens is all metal with the dark grey crinkle finish that looks great on its own, but always seems a little out of place when it's on a smooth black camera. The screw-on hood is metal, and works as the worlds' longest step-up ring by being threaded for 77mm filters on the front. Very clever.

The design of the 70/2.8EX Macro is something of a throwback; it feels older than the 2006 vintage that it is. It lacks Sigma's HSM motor, which means that the narrow focusing ring rotates during AF operation, and the Nikon model depends on the camera's screw-drive. I prefer this to the motor that Sigma puts in the Canon version, but it's a real problem for the little Nikon cameras, which are limited to manual focus. But what a manual focus it is – the ring has about a 270 degree throw, which is a vastly different experience from the measly 90 degrees of most quick-action AF lenses.

While focusing still isn't speedy, the powerful motors in top-end Nikons don't leave much to apologize for. Subjectively, I'd say that it's a bit faster on my D800 than my 50/1.4G in the normal range – not much to boast about – and about the same as my 105/2.8VR for macro focus. The Sigma also has an excellent limiter that keeps the lens in whichever half of the range it's already in when it's enabled. This is much easier to use that the fiddly three-position switch on the 105VR, and infinitely better than the 60/2.8G's complete absence of one.

Like three of the eight Micro lenses in Nikon's current catalog, the Sigma 70mm macro doesn't use internal focusing. The inner barrel extends quite substantially toward the minimum focusing distance, and there's a reproduction scale marked on its top. The second lens I ever owned also did that – the Olympus 35mm Macro, which is a 70mm equivalent – but it still takes a mental adjustment and feels like a negative. The upside is that there's no bellows effect: the 70/2.8EX keeps its f/2.8 aperture all the way down to its maximum 1:1 reproduction ratio.

But despite having so many other classic attributes – being polite – the Siggy 70/2.8 lacks an aperture ring. This lens could have been perfect for mirrorless cameras, and with a Nikkor "G"-compatible adapter it can still work, but naturally my Voigtlander F-to-M4/3 mount doesn't have an aperture control. Ah, well.

But the best part of the 70/2.8EX is the optics: it's subtly but distinctly sharper than the Nikon 60mm f/2.8G lens that I've put it up against, which is frequently called one of the sharpest lenses that Nikon makes. With proper technique and processing, the Nikon 60/2.8G is sharp enough to make my quickly-handled 50/1.4G look broken; when a Sigma lens can beat that, I have to sit up and take notice. While I'm not completely convinced that it will find a place on my D800, don't be surprised if I write a long-form review of it in the future.

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.

As always, viewer discretion is advised.

Last updated 24 july 2012

Introducing "Counter Opinions"

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Yes, the name will cause confusion.

There's already enough knee-jerk reactions and superficial information on the internet. My goal as a reviewer has always been to go beyond what's immediately obvious, and come up with insights that aren't going to be apparent to the casual observer.* Part of that comes from spending extended time using something, which typically has meant purchasing it. But there are only so many things per month that I can own, use, and have the enthusiasm to write about.

So after four years, it's time for a new category of short-form reviews. I'm calling them "Counter Opinions" – not because they're contrary, which they may sometimes be, but because they're the opinions that I can form just by spending time with something at the sales counter.

Corners will be cut. Mistakes may be made. Theories could be half-baked. Product photos will be limited. But in exchange for that I'll be able to include a more varied and eclectic subject range, and increase the number of new reviews that I can write.

Not everyone has easy access to decent stores these days, so hopefully this can still be interesting, entertaining, and maybe even useful. And of course the more comprehensive "Long Version" reviews will continue, and the remarkably enduring Thewsreviews rating scale will still apply regardless of format.

*Whether that's successful or not is another matter.

last updated 23 july 2012