Manfrotto MP3-D01 Pocket Series Tripod

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 0 out of 5
Yeah, but: Chant "don't buy, don't buy."

The Long Version: It's Manfrotto that calls the MP3-D01 a "Pocket DSLR Support" with a 1.5kg load capacity, not me. This flat plate with three independent legs is designed to stay attached to the bottom of a camera and simply unfurl when it's needed. It does fit a DSLR well enough – it's far too big for other cameras – but it certainly does not hold 1500 grams.

My D800 with the Sigma 35/1.4 should add up to 1555g, and the MP3 collapsed at the sight of it. Switching to the 60/2.8G lens brought the weight down to 1325 grams, and brought down the Manfrotto as well. It could mostly hold the camera with the 50/1.4G attached – 1180 grams – but I'd never rely on it for that task. In fact, my Joby Micro 800 – with a rated 800g capacity – did just as well at that level.

The MP3 has plenty of strength to hold little pocket cameras, but it's far too wide to be elegant. Manfrotto does explicitly say that it fits large cameras, so its unsuitability here shouldn't be a surprise, even though this is finally within its actual weight capacity.

So the only cameras that it really works with are the smaller ones with interchangeable lenses, as long as those lenses don't project below the camera body. My Nikon V1 works, even with the large 30-110mm lens, so that's a win.

Put another way, the non-musical MP3 is most suitable for cameras that have the memory card next to the battery, the door to which its broad breadth will almost certainly block.

The thinness of the MP3-D01 necessitates a thin and fiddly little attachment screw, which can be positioned in any of three slots to let the camera balance on it. This makes the tripod-thing awkward to remove and a nuisance to attach, but I suppose when a well-engineered product performs at this level some sacrifices must be made.

While I hardly ever actually use it this way, I have found one application that suits the little Manfrotto pocket tripod. It can hold my audio recorder off of a table, angled upwards enough to be useful, and doesn't block any ports or the battery door in the process. In this case its thinness really does let it stay attached to the recorder when it's in use or being carried, just like the promo material says it should.

The slightly thinner profile of the Manfrotto MP3 is its only advantage over the Joby Micro 800 that I usually use. The Joby is simply better in every other way, whether using it to support the camera or while using the camera with the support folded away. More elegant design, easier to attach, easier to use, less likely to obstruct battery doors, no little screw to lose, and significantly cheaper as well: at the time of writing, B+H has the Joby Micro 800 for $20 versus the MP3 for $35.

Seriously. Buy the Joby instead.

last updated 17 nov 2013

Joby Gorillapod Focus

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: Third time.

The Long Version: The Focus is the third Gorillapod, and sixth Joby product, that I've bought. Obviously I like them, but I've managed to decommission both an SLR and SLR Zoom, so I decided that stepping up to the heavy-duty metal model was a sensible thing to do.

It's nice to know that the Focus can easily hold my D800, but I rarely use it – or any tripod – for cameras. Instead it's part of my audio kit, where it does an exceptional job of keeping my Sony PCM-D50 field recorder exactly where I want it to be. The various Joby Gorillapods are such an excellent tool to have for audio recording that I consider them a mandatory-extra, just like proper wind protection.

The Focus is offered with or without a ball head. I went for the Without version and installed a Manfrotto 484RC2 head, which is heavier and larger than the Joby "Ballhead-X", but keeps compatibility with my existing heads and plates. If I was using arca-swiss gear then the X-head would have been perfect. Or almost perfect, at least – the included plate is square, but only has mounting grooves along one direction, giving visual but not operational symmetry. That's one of those things that would bug me for the life of the product, which in this case would be a very long time indeed. And yes, I do hate USB ports as well, thanks for asking.

While hanging a camera from a chain-link fence might not provide a lot of stability for long exposures or multi-shot brackets, it's something that works very well for audio gear. My method is to feed the legs through the fence, hooking the leg joints across the wire, and then snug the top two legs inward to give a secure hold. Then I can walk away and leave the recorder to do its thing for ten or fifteen minutes unattended and have no worries about it coming loose or letting me down. I'm also quite happy to hang the Gorillapod from the tops of signs or wrap it around posts, knowing that it won't work its way loose or slide.

I've been amazed at the places where the Focus has been happy, such as perched on the narrow bottom of an I-beam girder that's part of a highway overpass. I do occasionally use a full-sized tripod or light stand to hold my recorder, but proximity is everything, and the Focus is hard to beat for unusual perspectives.

And there are plenty of times when carrying larger objects simply isn't an option, whether it's for matters of convenience, access, practicality, or departure speed. I'm able to carry the Focus inside my nondescript backpack, so it's the heavy-duty support that I'm most likely to have with me.

While part of me wishes that I was a minimalist, it's usually beaten into submission by the larger part that wants the best available option to handle the widest range of contingencies, and that's what the Gorillapod Focus is. It's far stronger than I need for my Sony D50, but it's ready to do camera-duty with my Nikon D800, and that makes me happy. While the Focus is too heavy to carry for no reason – the lighter Joby head would help here – it's an indispensable part of both my day recording kit and the only tripod that I would consider travelling with. It might not do everything, but it's the most flexible tripod I know.

last updated 6 june 2013

Nikon FT-1 Mount Adapter

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: It's the best there is.

The Long Version: I have to be fair to the FT1 lens mount adapter, since it does accomplish the task of letting F-mount lenses attach to the Nikon 1-series cameras. It provides metering and camera-based aperture control, and allows static centre-point autofocus with AF-S lenses. In Nikon's world of restricted interoperability and reduced feature sets that's really all it can be expected to do, its $270 MSRP notwithstanding. (Dealers, as usual, may sell for less.)

The main problem with the FT-1 is that even the best F-mount lenses don't really shine on the noisy CX sensors. While workable, putting a big lens on the small body is awkward, and it's made worse by the low weight limits on the 1-system lens mounts. But when used with enough compassion and forgiveness my little V1 and FT1 can produce decent results, which should be familiar territory for the fans of these little cameras.

My personal experience with the FT1 adapter has been that it doesn't really solve much of a problem. The Nikon V1 is a camera that I use for its non-photographic strengths: being small, light, and quiet, it goes to places and gets used at times when my D800 wouldn't be an option. Putting an FX or DX lens on the V1 removes its 'small and light' attributes, leaving only quietness as its main attraction, with just a limited increase in its actual photographic value.

The FT1 is a small adapter, about the size of the 10-30 or 18.5mm lenses, and it has a tripod mount that supersedes the cameras' own when a "heavy" lens is attached. And that's pretty much all of them: any lens that's over 380 grams needs to be supported when it's on the camera lest it damage the mount. This is a pretty low limit; the 85/1.8G is pushing it, and the 60/2.8G is over. But for a little perspective, my CX lens trinity – 10-30, 30-110, and 18.5/1.8 – total up to just 360 grams. It's easy to feel like Hercules when everything around you is sized for Newton.

It feels quite natural to handle the combination by the lens when there's something bigger, like the 105VR, attached. But I have to admit that I haven't always strictly followed the 'handle-by-the-lens' requirement with smaller lenses like the 60/2.8G or 50/1.4G, and have had no ill effects to date. Nikon also advises that we don't fog our lenses by breathing on them – apparently it can damage the coatings – so I suspect that their product advisories are being written by liability lawyers rather than real-world practicality experts. As always, participate in this world at your own risk.

The tripod foot on the FT1 sits flush to the camera, so any quick-release plate that projects behind the mount will need to be attached after the adapter is on the camera. Nifty.

Nikon's AF-S lenses will autofocus on the FT1 adapter, using only the central AF point and without any tracking or CAF abilities. I've been using it with the 50/1.4G, 60/2.8G, and 105/2.8VR, and the results have been pretty good. The autofocus from those three isn't quite as quick as with the native CX lenses, including in low light, which surprised me given the brighter apertures of the real Nikon lenses over the f/dark 1-series zooms.

Optical issues like distortion, corner sharpness, and vignetting are basically non-existent on the lilliputian CX sensor. I'm tempted to make a snide "only using the best part of the lens" joke, but that's just leftover bitterness from my Olympus days talking.

Nikon is working very hard to forget about the whole "AF-D" lens era, and hopes you are too, but they do make some concession to motorless lenses. Not only do they graciously permit magnified viewing on the LCD, but they even include the familiar triangle-and-dot rangefinder focusing cues on the LCD screen. This is actually much more useful on the V1 than it is on an SLR, with results that are accurate enough that I won't always use the magnified view. There's something to be said for extensive depth of field.

Manual focus and older "AF" lenses on the FT1 retain the ability to zoom in on the LCD for focus assist, but lose the rangefinder because it relies on the D-is-for-Distance chip in the lens.

One attraction of the FT1 adapter is to 'get more reach' from long lenses. To try this out I used the same lens on both the V1 and the D800, cropped the D800 frame to match the V1, and then compared the results. After a couple of rounds with the 500/4 and 105VR I will say that the D800 pulls slightly more out of a similarly cropped frame, despite putting only 4.8 megapickles on the target. (Compare crops: D800, downsampled from 1500x1000 pixels, and V1, downsampled from 2150x1500 pixels; the focus point is the left eye and bridge of his nose.)

If long-lens work was what I really wanted to do with my time – it isn't – I'd be buying a Pro DX camera like the D7100 instead of any Nikon 1. That would put almost as many pixels on the subject and provide massive usability improvements over a CX camera with the FT1 adapter.

While it's hardly a comprehensive or exhaustive comparison, I've also checked to see if there's any optical benefit in choosing an adapted F-mount lens over a native CX one. I put the Nikon 60/2.8G, which has a very good reputation, up against the 30-110 lens at 60mm. While the $600 prime macro lens did resolve a bit more detail than the $250 kit zoom, there wasn't a significant difference. This suggests that the lens isn't the limiting factor where sharpness is concerned – *cough* noisy pixel-dense sensor *cough* – so I'm not going to bother using the FT1 when there's a native lens that can do the job.

'Equivalence' sucks. That's the theory that says that the noise and depth of field from a wide-open 50/1.4 lens on a CX camera at iso100 will look about the same as a 135mm lens on an FX camera at f/4 and iso800. Looking at it that way there's no reason to use the semi-little 50/1.4+FT1+V1 setup when I could use the bigger 105VR+D800 combination, crop down for a bit more reach, and still stomp all over the V1's image quality. When I'm under-lensed my own experience tells me that using the D800 and cropping away 85% of its pixels still gives better image quality than switching the same FX lens onto the FT1-V1.

Yup, that sucks.

But that's not to say that there's no reason to use bigger lenses on the FT1. Despite their operational limitations, it does give options that the diminutive catalog of petite CX lenses lacks. Fast primes are an obvious choice, but not the only one. The small sensor is a great equalizer, so even the modest 18-55 turns in good results; this ubiquitous lens has a useful 50-150mm-ish range, and it isn't too big for the camera. Stepping up to an f/2.8 DX standard zoom keeps the great range but adds a modest ability to drop out the background, and could be an effective PJ/wedding lens. And even if the results aren't better than a heavily cropped file from a contemporary SLR, using different tools and playing with unconventional options often helps the creative process.

Anyone who uses a V1, or any CX "Nikon 1" camera, does it despite plenty of very good reasons not to. Image quality was never very high on the list of positives for the system, but the point of it is that there are times when an SLR isn't a practical, or even possible, option. Using FX or DX lenses does mostly take away its advantage of smaller size, but it remains more discreet than an SLR and keeps the advantage of silence.

I'm not about to run out and buy more lenses just to use on the adapter, but the FT1 is worth considering if there's already a CX camera and AF-S lenses in the house. I don't use it very often in either my casual day-to-day camera-carrying or my dedicated photography sessions, but it was vital in catching family photos across the winter holidays. It works no miracles, but it's not a bad thing to have just the same.

Finally, a ranting aside:

The broader problem is that Nikon's efforts to cripple the 1-system as a photographic tool extends to its attitudes toward non-Nikon lens adapters. The V1 can't magnify the viewfinder for focus confirmation, shoot in anything but manual mode, or meter the exposure. Let me repeat that last point: with a generic lens adapter the V1 is completely unwilling to meter or even preview exposure before the shot is taken. I bought an adapter for my Zeiss M-mount lenses, which match the camera perfectly, but using them is essentially unworkable in practice.

Does Nikon think that they already offer everything anyone could want, and that they can be a photographer's complete universe? Did they miss the years of Panasonic, Olympus, and even latecomer Sony selling thousands of cameras to people who want to use decades' worth of older lenses from other systems? Or have they intentionally hobbled the 1-series to drive sales of their own ill-suited lenses at the expense of their customers?

As with many of Nikon's actions, they could be motivated by hubris, incompetence or malice: it's so hard to tell.

last updated 21 apr 2013

Nikon 1 V1, Part 3

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Adequate verging on sufficient.

The Long Version: Welcome to the third instalment of my overly-long-running review of the obsolete Nikon 1 V1. Part one was mostly getting the negatives out of the way, while part two took a sunnier view on things. Now it's finally time to look at the image quality of the camera that I've nicknamed "that stupid f'cking little piece of sh't". But don't read too much into that – I give affectionate nicknames to many of my cameras.

The first thing you need to know about image quality is that the V1 really wants to have a shutter speed of 1/30s, and won't increase its iso sensitivity to go faster than that. This is fine for the 10-30mm, and almost acceptable with good technique with the 30-110mm, as they both have in-lens image stabilization. The unstabilized 10mm f/2.8 should also be good with this – I don't own it to test – but the camera isn't clever enough to boost its minimun shutter speed with the 18.5mm, which is a 50mm-equivalent.

Let me tell you, 1/30 at 50mm isn't nearly fast enough to avoid camera shake with this lightweight little LCD-based camera. And this isn't just a 'low light' thing – I've run into its limitations on a cloudy day. This camera can't be trusted to do its own thing, and needs to be actively managed.

I'm generally happy with the V1 up to about iso800, which looks a little like iso6400 on my D800, but iso400 and under does create a significantly better file. I've printed the Rubbermaid photo above, taken at iso1000, as an 18x12, and it shows noise and artifacts under critical examination. Especially for higher iso settings, the modest per-pixel image quality makes low-DPI prints and uprezzing more difficult than usual. Yes, plenty of people make big prints from low-resolution cameras, but noise and noise removal – even with raw files – will make marginal prints from the V1 break up and look digital in a bad way.

On the other hand, the shipping container photo below, at a functionally identical iso900, passed scrutiny that's much more incisive than mine at the same size. Content matters tremendously, and it's overly simplistic to set an absolute limit on what will and won't be satisfactory ahead of time. My lesson from this is to use the shutter speed and aperture that the camera and photo requires, respectively, and let the iso sort itself out. Yes, this sometimes leads to disappointment, but I'd rather have a noisy photo than a blurry one, or worse, no photo at all.

But for web-sized images or snapshots none of this really matters. Properly managed, with the camera forced to use a sensible shutter speed and a reasonable iso setting, the V1's image quality is actually pretty decent. Coupled with its small lenses the V1 is a great camera for wandering around the city with, and I wouldn't feel foolish carrying it as my only camera for any multi-day trip that doesn't have photography as its primary goal.

The V1 lacks the modern nicety of having lens distortion correction built into the camera, and all of the lenses would benefit from it. Fortunately both Lightroom and DxO Optics, the two programs I use, support most of the 1's lenses. I'm just waiting for the 18.5mm lens to be supported, and when that finally catches up then I'll never hesitate to use it.

As a three-lens kit the V1 with the 10-30, 30-110, and fast normal 18.5mm prime makes for a flexible combination. Of the three the 30-110 is my favourite, and it seems to be a bit better than the 10-30, but really all of them are about as good as the camera. That's not a ringing endorsement, it's true, but this isn't an inherently exciting system.

Even at 'only' 10 megapickles, the V1's pixel density would make for a 74Mpx full-frame sensor, so designing appropriately small and inexpensive lenses is a major accomplishment. I've rounded out my lens options by adding the FT-1 adapter to my kit, and can't say that even the best F-mount lenses really blow me away on the V1, either. More on that in yet another review instalment, but for now the short version is that the 1-system lenses are fine.

When compared to recent cameras its image quality offers few surprises. It's generally better than smaller compact cameras that cost about the same amount of money as the 1V1's fire-sale prices, and not as good as larger-sensored cameras that cost more. And despite all of my griping, it actually compares quite favourably to older cameras that I've used extensively, such as the Olympus E-3 or Panasonic GH1, which remain some of the better 4/3 sensors out there.

The V1's image quality is good enough for pretty much everything that I usually do, so I know I'll have generally decent results from it, but it's tough being the little brother to a D800. The V1 is the camera that I carry when I'm carrying something else, whether it's a bigger camera that will benefit from the V1's small size and zoom lenses, or my audio kit that benefits from its silence.

So despite being deeply flawed as a photo-taking device, the reality is that the V1 makes an excellent sidekick, and there isn't a camera out there that would be a better match for my needs. Yes, that's a little sad in many ways, but that's just the way it is some times.

last updated 18 feb 2013

Nikon 1 V1, Part 1

Concept: 1 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Unquestionably the best camera of 2009.

The Long Version: The Nikon 1 V1 is a deeply flawed camera, and those flaws start with its name. The "Nikon 1" appellation is very difficult to search for, the "CX" format name has no traction, and the whole thing just sounds dumb. Nikon already makes three distinctly different operational tiers of SLRs, in two different sensor formats, and didn't feel the need for anything more than model names to identify them. The "1" in 'Nikon 1' is superflous and self-aggrandizing, and is probably an underlying reason why Nikon's small-sensor mirrorless format was so ruthlessly mocked by the camera intelligentsia.

Let's be clear: Nikon had it coming. From the marketing exhortation to "set your creative freedom free" to their offended "but we've been working on this for four years" stance, it's clear that they had no warning of the animosity that their 116-square-millimetre sensor and Sigma SD1-esque launch price would provoke. It was as if every camera-blogger and forum dweller had turned into Ken Rockwell, convinced of the indisputable rightness of their opinions based on something they read on the internet. I have to admit that I joined in briefly, decided that it was an evolutionary dead end, and then – like the rest of us Serious Camera People – forgot all about the system. Now, a year later, its price has dropped through the floor.

I have been mocked and derided for buying a V1, but I was shooting 4/3 sensors before they were cool. My photography has occasionally benefited from an antagonistic attitude, so the V1 suits this approach perfectly. But of course, not all of the initial scorn that the V1 faced was unwarranted. Far from it.

The V1 camera itself feels like it was designed by three different people who weren't on speaking terms. There are flashes of real brilliance here, which just makes its failings all the more frustrating.

The green 'power' light on the top of the camera is dark when the LCD is on – it's redundant, and thinking to turn it off is an elegant design touch. It's lit when the EVF is active, which is a great reminder that the camera is ready and drawing power. Yet even when the display button has been used to turn off the LCD there's no way to defeat the eye-sensor and keep the EVF active, so the EVF is always dark for a second when the camera is first brought up for use. Frustrating.

The camera's exposure compensation has a range of three stops in each direction, but there's no automatic exposure bracketing function. The camera is almost frighteningly fast to shoot, but there's no way to turn off the image review, or even to extend its duration should someone actually want to use that feature. This cripples the cameras' vaunted focusing speed and tracking. The Auto White Balance can be tuned to provide subtle colour refinement, but Active D-Lighting can only be turned on or off, with no level control. Only whole stops are available for setting a single iso sensitivity, but the auto-iso mode will use thirds of a stop increments; its ceiling can be set with three different maximum values, although it will never tell you what sensitivity it's actually using. And there aren't even any "Art" effects built in – which is a good thing, but it proves that this camera really did start its development an eon ago.

The appeal of the menu structure, which other reviewers have praised, escapes me. There's no apparent order or logic, settings that are likely to be changed frequently aren't located together, and there's no "my menu" list of recently used items to provide a shortcut. Yet the selection bar changes from yellow to red to warn the user that selecting "yes" after "format" isn't just another trifling choice. I've never seen another camera interface combining such poor execution with such thoughtful attention to detail.

It's absurd that a camera that offers pixel mapping, front and rear IR receivers for the wireless remote, and a built-in intervalometer nonetheless requires a trip into the menu to change the shooting mode. This inconsistency is my main frustration with the camera: if it was universally bad I could just write it off, but so much of it is better than this.

The V1's buttons and controls, few though they are, are still worth mentioning. Exposure compensation is one of the most useful photographic controls, and its button is the right side of the four-way pad – the three-o'clock position. It can be adjusted up or down by pressing the top or bottom of the control ring, or by rotating it like the command dial that it is. Setting a brighter exposure, which is an upwards movement of the on-screen indicator, is accomplished with a clockwise turn: that's rotating the dial "downwards" from the EV Comp button position. Completely counterintuitive.

The exposure compensation on-screen display is another of the V1's many almost-made-it design moments. It cleverly avoids clutter by only putting numbers at zero and at the ends of its range, and displays the currently selected value in white instead of black on the muted grey background. Very clear and easy to understand. But the LCD doesn't preview the effect of the change, and the V1 doesn't have a live histogram, so it's still a matter of guessing the correct setting before being able to see its results.

I'm not even going to discuss the "mode" dial – mine has been neutered by taping it in place. The only thing I really miss is having access to the better controls and options of the dedicated movie mode, and the extra few seconds to unstick the tape is a small price to pay for not accidentally using the Harry Potter or Auto-Cull modes. No, what really bothers me is that none of the three people who designed the V1 could think of a supplemental use for the dedicated "Trash" button when the camera is taking photos.

But I wouldn't take the time and effort to be this annoyed by the Nikon V1's faults if I didn't like the camera. In just a few weeks I've gone from essentially impulse-buying the deeply-discounted camera and standard zoom to owning a three-lens kit, an FT1 adapter for my full-sized lenses, and Richard Franiec's custom V1 grip. Clearly, despite its foibles and flaws, there's something very appealing about the Nikon V1 and the CX format.

After my first few weeks with the V1 I still can't decide if it's a good camera or not. It certainly has its frustrations; some of them go away when I'm using it, and others don't. There are a lot of good things going on with this camera, but I'm needing to learn how to use it in ways that I haven't faced with the many others that I own.

I have some very solid – although inevitably personal and subjective – reasons why this is exactly the right camera for what I do. I take a longer look at those, and possibly even discuss image quality, in part two.

last updated 11 dec 2012

Nikon D800 – Half-Year Edition

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: Like the world needs another D800 review.

The Long Version: I was intending to do a six-month D800 update, but given how much has already been said about the camera I found myself at a loss. So, a month late, I've decided to just quickly touch on the enduring highlights of what I've learned from this incredible camera.

First of all, that whole "megapixels don't matter" thing is a myth perpetuated by people who are selling old cameras. The D800 lets me take photos that no other camera has, including the excellent D700. Compared to the ten and twelve megapixel cameras of my past its resolving power is just spectacular. My personal hallelujah moment came when I went to clone out a speck of dirt, and on enlarging the image to 1:1, I saw that it was actually a gnat – and not only could I count its legs, I could see their shadows.

The sensor is so good that I occasionally use DxO Optics as a front-end for Lightroom 4. It has superior lens correction and differential sharpening, among other benefits, which squeaks better photos out of Nikons' non-phenomenal lens lineup. The cost of the software is about the same as the difference between the D800 and D800E, so I'm happy with that trade.

My personal best battery life was 1600 photos on one charge. Conditions were good: a warm day, using an 85/1.8D and 50/1.4G, only occasional LCD use, and no live view. But a few days later I burned through half of a battery by taking 120 shots and letting my Eye-fi card transfer the small jpegs. Life is complicated, battery life doubly so.

Now I just plan for one battery per 64GB memory card under normal conditions. It works out pretty well, and I only carry a spare under exceptional circumstances. If I really want to squeak the most power out of a battery then I'll add on the grip, which lets me run one all the way down without missing a shot. That's also a great addition for Live View, which is power-hungry and slow, but worthwhile for precise focusing. Life's a barter.

With the notable exception of Live View, the D800 is a very snappy little camera. I'm thrilled to say that despite its slower burst rate the actual shutter-mirror mechanism of the D800 is just as quick as the D700, if not even faster. I judge my shutter speed by the sound of the camera and the mirror blackout, so this is something I care about a lot.

But in Aperture-priority and with Auto Iso enabled the shutter speed almost never drops into the range where I can hear the difference in its duration. And the best part of Auto Iso is that setting a new minimum value, or turning it off, doesn't require a trip into the menus. This is a huge improvement from the previous generation.

I let the camera automatically run up to iso6400, and if it goes that high then it clearly needed to do it. While I watch my dynamic range a bit in very low light I never worry about noise.

A lot has been said of the need to upgrade hard drives and computers for a D800. My 2007 iMac isn't the happiest these days, but it's not about to be replaced, and boosting the capacity of my Drobo is a non-issue. All that I really need from my existing photography support equipment is a way to put bigger paper through my Epson 3880. That's not a bad problem to have.

I started using film cameras because I wanted digital files that would print better than what my 12Mpx digital cameras could do. Even though 135 format resolves less detail than those cameras could, a 4000dpi scan holds up to a lot of enlargement. But now that I'm used to the D800, those little 20Mpx scans seem quaint. My medium format gear doesn't make it out of the house much, either.

The new 24Mpx D600 is promising camera, but if someone offered me a brand new one and $1000 cash for my lightly used D800, I'd say no. Cameras like this are something special.

last updated 23 oct 2012

Joby Gorillapod Micro 800

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Long-term testing may revise those numbers.

The Long Version: I'm one of those "magical purchase" people – I have this idea that bridging the distance between me and perfection is just a matter of finally finding the right thing to buy. For many people this causes a proliferation of unused home exercise equipment, for me it results in an aberrantly high number of tripods.

But the real insidious nature of this thinking isn't that it never works: it's that it sometimes does.

The Joby Gorillapod Micro 800 is one of those vexing exceptions. It's a tiny tripod that can stay attached to a small camera without making it unwieldily. Although I've only owned mine for a little while, it has let me take better photos more easily, and I haven't had to sacrifice anything in exchange for having it with me.

The branding decision that resulted in the "Gorillapod Micro" name is unfortunate, since it bears absolutely no resemblance to Joby's famous (and often badly copied) line of flexible Gorillapods. It really should be called the "Joby Micropod" and promoted more prominently on their website; I went looking for it after seeing one that someone else owned, and it was remarkably hard to find. I didn't know its full name at that point, and for some reason it doesn't rate a front-page photo.

Joby does redeem themselves somewhat by encoding the weight capacity into the full name, though: the JGP Micro 800 holds 0.8kg – 800 grams, 1.75 pounds – and is intended for Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Format ('MILF') cameras. There's also the Micro 250 – 0.25kg – that's more size-appropriate for point-and-shoot models, but I'm happy to have the bigger one.

When on a mirrorless format camera, such as my Panasonic GH1, the Micro 800 just blends in with the bottom of the machine. There's simply no need to ever take it off. I can even leave it attached to either of my little compact cameras when I tuck them in a pocket, although the folded legs do extend beyond their bodies. I don't mind this – it works as a more effective hand grip – but the smaller, lighter, and weaker Micro 250 is a good option if that's likely to be an objection.

There are a few functional compromises in exchange for the low profile of the simple and sleek Micros. One is that its 'positioning ball' has only a limited range of movement – if this was a big tripod it would be called a levelling base. So forget about astrophotography or portrait orientation, but very few people actually use little cameras for either of those tasks.

The other thing that it can't do is lock itself in place: there's no adjustment to the tension of the positioning ball or legs. In practice this isn't much of a limitation, but it may mean that cameras with off-centre tripod mounts, or long lenses, won't play well with the Micro even if their weight isn't completely out of bounds. Conversely, I can rest my three-pound Hasselblad on the Micro 800 quite comfortably, although I wouldn't use it for long exposures. So holding power is quite good, although the idea of twisting the camera against the full tension of the Micropod does take a few days to feel natural.

But the lack of tension adjustability is a faint little concern in the back of my mind. My Micro is still fairly new, but I'll either update this review or write a follow-up with the results of longer-term use, probably in six months or so.

The design of the Micro 800 is quite satisfying. It weighs enough to feel solid and strong, but not so much as to be objectionable. The rubber feet are grippy enough for good traction without snagging on fabric if it's being carried in a pocket or bag. And the design of the pivot, as well as interlocking flanges and grooves on the legs, should let it withstand quite a bit of wear and tear in daily use.

There is one choice to make when using the Micro: how tightly it should be attached to the camera. There's a coin-activated screw slot on the bottom, and when it's used to attach the Micro to the camera then it won't unscrew during regular use. The other option is to just use the legs of the Micro to twist itself into place, but then it can unscrew depending on how the legs and camera are turned. I usually don't use a coin to tighten the tripod screw, but if I was only using the Micro on one camera, I might make that occasional extra effort.

I own a little beanbag, a Manfrotto "pocket tripod", three small tabletop tripods, and two gorillapods. I use none of them on a regular basis, and despite developing a certain affection for long exposure photographs with my little Canon S100, could never bring myself to carry any of those bigger devices with me when I was just taking advantage of impromptu opportunities. Now that has completely changed. The Micro 800 is easy enough to use, and useful enough to have, that I will switch it to whatever little camera I happen to be using that day. The result is that some of my photos have become much better – almost like magic.

Added: I've now had a chance to play with a Joby Micro 250, and it's pretty awesome, too. Plenty of strength for a point-and-shoot camera, merges perfectly with the base of my Canon S100, and even had an attachment that would let it hold my phone in its case. One – or two – of them have been added to my 'must buy' list.

Added Again: Proving that I'm more prescient than I think I am, I have indeed bought two of the Joby Micro 250. The first was with the Griptight phone mount, which I've reviewed, and the second time was just the 250 tripod when I lost the first one. My Micro 800 is still going strong and is now used with my Nikon V1 system.

last updated 17 nov 2013

Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Fast fifty – the original all-purpose lens.

The Long Version: Fast primes aren't my usual thing, so while the Nikon 50/1.4G AF-S lens isn't my first, it did take me quite a while to decide to buy it. I was initially looking at the 60/2.8G Micro lens as a new standard for my Nikons, but after a lot of reading and test drives, I surprised myself by picking the smaller and faster option as the lens that just felt right.

The 50/1.4G is a modern mid-range Nikkor, which means a lot of plastic, but even by that standard it's a very light lens. Its front element is deeply recessed, and while it comes forward when the lens is at its 45cm minimum focusing distance, it never advances beyond the front of the focusing ring. With its metal lens mount and so much of the glass at the rear of the barrel, the lens's centre of gravity is about where its full name is written out behind the focusing distance window. Having its weight so far back means that on the camera the lens just disappears: it's exceptionally transparent to work with.

Naturally, the 50/1.4G comes with a plastic bayonet-mount barrel hood that can cut down its tendency to flare. This adds almost nothing to its weight but increases its length by two thirds, which still leaves it quite small and easy to carry. Given how deeply recessed the front element is I'd almost consider it optional, but I'm such a rule-follower that the idea of not using it never even occurred to me. If nothing else, it keeps me from getting my fingers in the shot.

Blue, Nikon D700, 50/1.4G at 5.6, 1/60s, iso1250

Lens reputations are a funny thing. The 60mm f/2.8G has been called one of Nikon's sharpest, while the 50/1.4G tends to leave pundits less impressed. But trying the lenses and squinting at the number-crunching review sites that I trust, like Photozone and SLRgear, shows a slightly different story. At the apertures that they share – f/2.8 to f/16 – the 50/1.4G is either very close to or actually sharper than the 60/2.8G. Of course the 50/1.4G is softer wide open, which seems to tarnish its forum cred, but it's letting in two more stops of light. That doesn't seem unreasonable.*

By taking the 50/1.4G over the macro lens I do have to accept a certain amount of barrel distortion, which bothers me. But now I routinely use DxO's "Optics Pro" software on all of the worthwhile photos from the D800. That goes beyond Lightroom 4 in correcting for poor corner sharpness, vignetting, and distortion. It's not perfect, and it's not as good as starting with an exceptional lens, but it does a nice pre-polish on the 50/1.4G. What can I say? Every compromise has its compensation.

The frustrating truth is that there is no 'best' lens, and in reality peak sharpness isn't everything: it's more important to have the lens that's right for the photographer. Looking at the photos that I've taken with the 50/1.4G shows that one-quarter of the time it's set faster than f/2.8, and that's not something I'd be willing to give up. And it's not just in "low light" conditions, either – I've come to embrace the lens's character at wide apertures and enjoy a certain loss of definition.

Gray/Staso, Nikon D800, 50/1.4G at 1.4, 1/8000, iso100

There are certain lenses that are so predictably and uniformly excellent that they're almost boring to use – the 50/1.4G is not one of those lenses. Wide open it has a bit of bite in the centre, but it covers only a small portion of the frame. (Unhelpfully, I've actually softened this area in the Gray/Staso photo, as it's distracting in the full-sized image.) By f/2.8 it's quite well behaved, and is most consistent around f/4-5.6. Even then it's still not perfectly uniform, but it's not going to start any fist fights.

In an ideal world, every lens would have fast and accurate autofocus. But if I need to choose between the two, I'll take accuracy over speed any day, and I suspect that the Nikon designers made the same decision. Focusing the 50/1.4G is slow enough that it's noticeable, but it has never let me down. I've used the lens on my D700, D800, F100, and F5 – all great cameras, to be sure, and it's absolutely solid on all of them. Naturally, I use the AF fine-tuning on every camera that supports it, and it can make a huge difference with such narrow depths of field. Highly recommended.

I don't suppose many people would be using a 50mm lens for fast action, and the lens is quick enough when making short adjustments. It just takes a beat to reset if it misses and has to come back.

While the lens is said to have some focus shift, I've never seen its effect in my photos. That's not to say that it isn't there, since focus shift is an optical fact and not a matter of sample variation, but rather that it's subtle enough that it's being disguised within the depth of field and/or my typically poor shot discipline. This makes it pretty much irrelevant on the D800, because if I deeply care about critical sharpness – and I'm using the 50/1.4G anyway – then I'll be using a tripod, live view, and contrast-detection autofocus, which focuses the lens directly from the image sensor at the shooting aperture. That makes most softness problems, including focus shift, go away.

Cinder Blocks, Nikon D800, 50/1.4G at f/11, 1/200, iso100

I'm lucky enough to have been able to compare the 50/1.4G to most of its alternatives, so here are some thoughts on the competition:

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-D: The 50/1.8D is a funny lens – almost unreasonably cheap, and at f/5.6 it's one of the best Nikon lenses out there. I've already written a long-form review of it, but compared to the 1.4G, the cheaper lens has less geometric distortion, much faster focusing, and performs just as well when stopped down. Officially I sold the 1.8D because I wanted better performance at the wider apertures, but since I use the 1.4G at f/5.6 for half of my photos, I have to confess that its cheapness is ultimately why I replaced the 1.8D. I just felt silly putting something so small and inexpensive on a top-end camera – it didn't make me happy, no matter how good it actually was.

Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-D: While the little 50/1.4D really isn't as good wide open, and is never quite as sharp, the screw-drive AF has a 'snap' to it that the AF-S lenses lack. It's not just that the autofocus of the AF-S 50/1.4G is slower, which it unquestionably is, but the silent drive and lack of feel makes it less satisfying to use. The little 1.4D is the lens that I really want to put on my film F5 – but the better optics of the 1.4G are a better match to the D800.

Untitled Blue-Green, Nikon F5, 50/1.4G, probably f/5.6, Kodak's New Portra 400

Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8G: The newer AF-S 50/1.8G is a bit faster to focus than the 1.4G, although still no match for the AF-D lenses on a strong screw-drive body. It doesn't have quite the peak central sharpness of the marginally brighter lens, but trying to spot the difference between the two in a print would probably require a loupe. And it's almost exactly the same size as the 1.4G, so it looks perfectly at home on any modern Nikon. If both lenses were sitting on the table in front of me, I would probably take the 1.4G, but I'd have to think about it. But if both lenses are sitting on the shelf at the store, then the 1.8G is only half the price of the 1.4G, and there are a lot of other fun photographic things that $250 could buy.

Sigma 50/1.4 HSM: This is really a very different lens from any of the Nikons. Much bigger and heavier, this lens shows less vignetting than the Nikon 50/1.4G, and is beautifully built. But the Sigma is clearly optimized for portraiture – that's the polite way of saying that wide open the edges and corners are unequivocally soft, while the central sharpness is about the same as the Nikon, and it never really gets as sharp across the frame even at its best. The Sigma is not a general-purpose lens the way the other 50's are, but it is perfect for the right people.

PSA: Keep in mind that reading quick summaries – or long-form reviews, or lab tests – is a poor alternative to actually trying different lenses in person. Please support your local camera store if you're lucky enough to still have one.

Exceptionalism, Nikon D800, 50/1.4G at f/2.8, 1/500, iso100

I picked the AF-S 50mm 1.4G to be my main lens for my D700 – before the 1.8G was announced – and now it's providing solid service on my D800. It's the lens that's always on the camera unless there's a specific reason to use something different, although occasionally my F5 is allowed to borrow it. It's easy to carry, pleasant to work with, and has a very useful focal length. This is a lens that I like, both on the camera and in its results, and ultimately that trumps any test-bench report.

If money is no object, then the 50/1.4G is still the best 50mm lens that Nikon makes, and it is a very good lens. But ultimately it's still only a midrange fast prime: a solid lens to have in the lineup, a staple that shouldn't be overlooked, but not outstanding in its own right. The fact that the 50/1.8G comes so close to its performance – and surpasses it in some ways – is quite remarkable for the cheaper lens, but not flattering for its big brother.

If Nikon were to come out with a premium fast 50mm lens that improves on the 1.4G's weaknesses – snappy autofocus, sharper and more consistent across the frame, less distortion, weather sealing – I would be on it in an instant. They can keep the f/1.4 aperture and double the price: I don't mind if the performance is exceptional from 2.8 and merely excellent below that. But until then, I'm happy enough. I haven't found a whole lot that this lens can't do.


*Mea Culpa Update: I've re-run some tests with the AF-S 60/2.8G Micro lens on the D800. I can see a slight difference in their sharpness both at f/2.8 and f/5.6, the two apertures that I tested, and the 50/1.4G isn't the winner. The macro lens also has faster autofocus and fewer aberrations of all kinds, with the sole exception of vignetting. My point about choosing the right lens remains, and the extra brightness is also a huge differentiator between the lenses, but for the best performance at f/4-5.6 I would pick the 60/2.8G.

last updated 19 july 2012

Nikon F5

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: It's the five-ton truck of the 35mm world.

The Long Version: I have a problem: I like cameras. The Nikon F5 has been on my to-buy list for a couple of years, but back then their prices were beyond what I was willing to spend on a film camera and I bought the more reasonable F100 instead. Happily, this past spring the benevolent spirits of Craigslist came through for me, and now a legendary F5 is mine.

If the D800 is the God Nikon then the F5 a Titan. It's the camera that all modern pro and semi-pro Nikons are descended from, whether they're film or digital. The button-and-dial control layout started here, and it's amazingly seamless to switch between the F5 and a digital body – maybe too easy.

The F5 is fast. Really, really fast. Not only is the shutter blackout incredibly brief, the film advance is so quick that its sound is subsumed within the not-subtle shutter and mirror noise. Working with the F5 barely feels like using film at all, which is a little scary with a camera that can rip through an entire roll in under five seconds.

Needless to say, I keep my F5 in single-frame mode whenever it's loaded.

Holding the F5 is like looking at a photo from the D800: unreasonably awesome. If I'm ever concerned about needing to bludgeon my way through a wall or out of a crowd, the F5 is absolutely the camera that I'll want to carry. I'm pretty sure that, if swung with enough force, the Nikon F5 could disassemble just about any camera out there and still work flawlessly.

The F5 feels better to hold than any other Nikon I've tried, and it proves that in 1996 Nikon still knew how to build a proper thumb rest. But sadly, they quite literally don't make them this way any more. The incredible impression of solidity that the F5 enjoys at least partially comes from not needing all of the buttons, screens, and flippery that infest digital cameras. The F5 isn't a gadget, it isn't something to fiddle with or check out – it takes photos and asks no questions.

The vertical grip is worth a quick mention. These days it's common to see a complete suite of controls on either the pro bodies or the accessory grips for the more compact cameras, but the F5 only has the basics: shutter release, AF-On button, and a lockout switch. The grip itself is also fairly subtle, so the camera is held with an open hand instead of a gripping fist. That's unlike any vertical grip on the market today, but it's still effective and – I might as well say it – it keeps the bulk of the camera down.

The F5 is also the last Nikon film camera to offer Live View: it has a removable prism, much like many of its Medium Format friends. Even without the various alternative viewing devices that can be attached, such as the waist-level hood or magnifying eyepieces – which are still quite expensive – sliding the prism off of the top of the camera can provide a look-down viewing alternative. Perhaps that's not the most useful feature, but it can be a fun trick to do with a room full of digital kids.

By today's standards the F5's five-point autofocus sounds primitive, but it's accurate and sensitive. I tend to use just the centre autofocus point with all of my cameras, and only occasionally move to a different point for predictably off-centre compositions, and the F5 is perfectly capable of playing along.

I did make a big mistake when learning about the autofocus with my F5, though – I tried it with the 80-200/2.8D lens. This is a heavy lens that depends on the camera's built-in motor to drive its focusing system, and I assumed that because it's a contemporary of the F5 that the two would be a good match. Very bad move: it was, and now I want an 80-200.

The F5 is powered by eight AA batteries, and its focusing motor could probably tear some lenses in half. The 80-200's huge elements were thrown into position with such force that I could feel the lens and camera – an eighteen-pound combination – jump and recoil in my hands. Using it with smaller AF-D lenses isn't as dramatic but is equally effective; the F5 has given my 85/1.8D new life. To think that I was once considering selling it…

Contemporary AF-S and VR lenses are fully compatible with the F5 as well, but what they gain in silent autofocus they lose in cool zipp-zipt sound effects. There's a lot to be said for old-school.

The only real drawback to the F5 is its size and weight, but those are also two of its better assets. Yes, my GA645zi is a smaller camera with a negative two and a half times bigger; having such a mousy little neg from a camera this size does seem pretty absurd. But if there's one thing that I've learned about photography it's that the camera fundamentally changes the process, and using the F5 is almost enough to make me feel 'macho' despite its rather modest endowment.

And yes, the F100 is a nice camera too, having mostly the same internals but being much more sensibly sized. As a second camera, such as one that backs up a digital body or as one that won't see very much use, it's a completely logical choice. I'm going to sell mine anyway – using it is simply no match for the F5 experience.

Compared to using a digital SLR the F5 does need a slightly different way of thinking. Its metering is excellent, but my favourite negative films are actually less forgiving than my D800, so I do need to watch out for high-contrast scenes and small highlights again. This is where I really miss the ability to use the rear control dial for "easy exposure compensation"; it's a shame to waste one of the dials in command-priority modes. The front command dial is also in a subtly different position than on the newer cameras, positioned more toward the lens-side of the grip, and the dials are also stiffer than on the current digital bodies.

I also have to remember that it's normal to see 'grain' with iso400 films – even my little Canon S100 has cleaner files than what Portra400 or XP2 can give me, but that's completely missing the point.

Using any film camera these days is an affectation – I doubt that anyone still depends on the F5 to get the shot that will pay their rent. Similarly, digital cameras are now so far beyond what small-format film can capture that using the F5 will actually be a step down from the image quality of any entry-level SLR from the past few years. That's completely okay. The charm of film these days is exactly the flaws, grain, quirks and colour palette that becomes an indivisible part of the image, and the different processes that changes the entire mindset around its photography.

So given that film is inherently an indulgence, why not use the biggest and the best that Nikon has ever made? The F5 is unquestionably a Pro camera, and these days it can be afforded by mere mortals. While I got lucky and found one in very good cosmetic condition, I wouldn't hesitate to buy one that looks like it's been bouncing around in the back of a truck. Given a moderate amount of shopping skills it shouldn't be too hard to convert $800 into an F5, 50/1.4D lens, and enough film to get started with. That's a small price for immortality.

last updated 22 june 2012

Nikon D800: One Month Later

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Is it time for patience and introspection yet?

The Long Version: I've had the good fortune to be using a D800 for almost a month now, and have been able to use it in a pretty decent variety of situations. But rather than describing scenarios or shooting styles, there's an easier way to know if it's the right camera for you. Consider this:

"16x20 at 300dpi"

If that doesn't make sense, stop reading. Seriously. The Nikon D800's ability to make big prints is unchallenged by any camera costing less than four times as much – with the sole exception of the D800E – so buying it without the plan to print really big is a waste.

That's not to say that the D800 is a limited or specialized camera, though. It's perfectly capable of handling a huge variety of challenging conditions, and its high-iso performance, autofocus, dynamic range, viewfinder, metering, and design are all improved over the D700, which was already one of the best all-purpose cameras ever made. Frankly, the D800 would be a worthy upgrade even if it didn't accomplish it all with triple the pixel count.

Demanding conditions, no?

Sure, the God Nikon isn't really being challenged by photographing an available kitten, but it's a realistic test for what most SLRs end up being used for. The image above is cropped down to about a quarter of the original, letting an 8x10" print stand-in for a full 16x20. There's enough detail to check the catchlight in his left eye and see what was on TV. If I play with the exposure and fill light in Lightroom, I can see how the room is furnished. At iso3200.

To do that all in exchange for giving up just one frame per second over the D700 is amazing. Yes, the D800 actually loses two frames per second when both cameras are using AA batteries in their multi-power grips – six versus eight – and the D800 has to drop down to DX mode to do it. Even then, it still has more resolution than the D700. But now the new entry-level D3200 has the same resolution as the previous $8K D3x flagship, so perhaps pixels aren't worth what they once were.

The competing Canon 5D3 also has a six-per-second frame rate, and does it at full resolution and without needing a booster battery pack. Perhaps it even has a smidge faster autofocus, but considering how badly the 5D1 and 5D2 lagged in the AF department, let's not get too smug about that.

There are a few ways that the Canon 5D3 is decisively and unquestionably better than the D800. For one thing, it has three separate IR receivers to work with the cheap and abundant Canon RC-6 wireless remote – the idea of spending some $200 on an exotic Nikon ML-3 might take some of the shine off of the price differential for unsuspecting D800 buyers. Sure, the 'Modulite' ML-3 is a neat remote, but it would be nice to also have a $20 option.

The 'silent' drive mode on the Canon camera makes a complete mockery of Nikon's 'quiet' setting. If your photography involves events, weddings, TV or stage productions, music, skittish wildlife or non-professional models, buy the Canon 5D Mark III. It's not even a decision. In exchange for a slightly slower release and longer blackout – very slightly – it makes the camera almost disappear. It can even do burst shooting. If that mattered to me I would use this all the time, just so that its timing becomes second nature.

The battery door on the Canon 5D mk III is also vastly better than the D800. Nikon's is a flimsy affair held on by narrow pins with a fiddly latch; it's also very easy to remove from the camera despite the fact that it never needs to be taken off. The Canon battery door has a very secure spring-loaded hinge pin that's released with a convenient lever – it needs to be removed to use the BG-E11 battery grip – a secure but easy-to-use release to open it, and the door itself is larger and more solid.

The 5D3's battery door even has a flange that incorporates the pass-through cover for the AC power adapter's cable; on the D800 this is done by an annoying rubber nubby thing that sticks out from the camera body. My little finger rubs against this when I hold the camera normally, turning it into a nagging reminder of poor design.

While this is somewhat more subjective, the Canon 5D mk III also has a hand grip and thumb rest that I vastly prefer. In fact, everyone I know who has tried both prefers the Canon. It just allows a more solid hold with less fatigue, even when there's a heavy lens on the front of the camera, and that's something that makes a big difference over the long term.

The grip on the God Nikon is one of those things that takes some familiarization. My first reaction was that I didn't like it, and that's something that I've heard from other people as well. But I, like them, quickly adapted to the new grip that moves the shutter button much farther away from the rest of the hand grip, and now it feels quite natural. The shutter button on the D800 is reached from the side, instead of from the front, and it looks like that will become standard for each new Nikon SLR.

Another new ergonomic design that's expanding across the line is the AF mode selector switch. It took me a while to adjust to the D7000-style selector, but now I like it much better than the D700's three-position switch. The middle position is always less accessible than the two ends, so having the Nikon-standard button-and-dial system is an improvement.

And in other happy news, after taking nine hundred photos, I've finally adjusted to the new playback zoom in/out button positions. Yay!

Setting a custom white balance has always been needlessly difficult with Nikon cameras. The process for measuring a preset white balance takes three pages in the manual to outline its six steps, involves both command dials, and pressing the WB button at least three times. With my D700 I'd usually just give up, take a reference photo, and fix it in post – and I can't see that changing, no matter how useful it would be for the raw+jpeg recording that I do with the D800.

So while the D700 was already bad, the D800 is actually a bit worse. The D800 is incapable of taking a direct white balance measurement when custom function "g4" is enabled. What's this setting "G4" that's so fundamental to the D800's operation, you ask? It's the ability to start video recording, exclusively while in the Video Live View mode, by pressing the shutter button. And lest anyone think that this is an understandable restriction to avoid conflicting use of the shutter button, the camera can't even take a white balance reference exposure in Live View in the first place.

Incidentally, having the shutter button set to sart video recording is actually incredibly useful, since it lets the 10-pin remote work as a start/stop button. The only reason to not have this setting turned on is for people who may need to also capture a high-quality still during recording. Or, unfortunately, people who need accurate colour.

But if this review seems unreasonably negative, there's a very good reason for it. I've been trying to find problems, and this is the best that I've come up with. I'm sure there will be other issues that arise with more use, and I know that others will also come up with their own lists. But really, this is all just buzzing around the edges: the camera is outright awesome.

I'm still expecting to do a third instalment about the D800, perhaps in the early summer, when there's a chance that they could actually be in stock somewhere.

Until then, the biggest problem with the Nikon D800 is that it really is as good as its boosters say it is. No, it's not Magical And Revolutionary, and it doesn't create great art automatically, but it's a significant step up from the D700. That means that it's going to be in short supply, and sustain its launch price, for quite some time.

last updated 21 apr 2012

First Impressions: Nikon D800

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: It's so pretty.

The Long Version: I haven't spent much time with the D800 yet, recently purchased from Toronto's Aden Camera, but this isn't the time for patience and introspection. That can come later.

I'm trying to come up with a word other than 'awesome' to describe the D800's image quality. I may have to settle for 'astonishing'. My first reaction to each new photo has been "you have got to be kidding me". Detail, noise, dynamic range: I instantly forgot how much I paid for this electronic contraption. I used to call my D700 'the monster' for what it could pull off – just a few minutes with the D800 had me calling it 'the God Nikon'.

I'd happily use the D700 to iso3200 for semi-important photos, and 6400 for ones under more extreme conditions. With the D800, it looks like I'll be adding about another stop on top of that. The iso12800 boost setting, which I used on a dark street, produced results that I'd be quite pleased with – especially when the alternative could be no photo at all.

But like my D700, I didn't buy the D800 for its low-light ability. What I want is the ability to make high-quality prints, and the D800's images can be printed at 16x20" and 300dpi without upsizing. To reach that size with my D700, I would need to go through super-resolution software with a stack of photos, or tile multiple images. All of this requires forethought, careful execution, and a great deal of computer resources. With the D800 I skip the first two requirements, which is a huge advantage.

I've yet to take a photo with it that's worth the ten dollars in paper and ink, but I'm sure it will happen eventually.

Another interesting feature that I didn't buy the D800 for is its video ability. I've never really been interested in video; I have a hard enough time assembling a sequence of still photos without trying to learn a whole new language. But just for fun, I put the camera on a tripod and pointed it at something moving and moderately interesting. About the only thing that I changed from the camera's default settings was to enable video recording by pressing the shutter button, which let me use my cable release to start and stop the sequence. One minute of the results are on Vimeo here.

One thing to remember about the God Nikon is that its desire is to create as strongly detailed photos as possible. A lot has been said elsewhere about the D800 and its need for the best lenses and technique to pull the most out of the camera. That's true. But there's nothing that says that its needs should be the most important ones in the relationship. I recently spent a happy saturday taking photos at a wholly inappropriate aperture, forgetting that adequate depth of field is more important than peak sharpness. Lesson learned.

The payoff for good discipline may be greater with the D800, but it handles carelessness pretty well too. Yes, I can clearly see when I miss focus with my 50/1.4G when it's wide open, there's a massive difference between f/1.4 and f/5.6, and I'm aware of corner softness that I had never noticed before. But even in those times of trouble the D800 is still pulling everything the lens has to give – just because the D800 isn't at its best, it doesn't follow that using a lesser camera would give better results. The important thing is to use the right lens and aperture for the creative purpose, and if that happens to be a dazzlingly sharp piece of crystal at its optimum aperture, great. If not, still great.

One thing that I have done to accommodate the 36 megapickle sensor is spend the time to fine-tune the autofocus with the two AF lenses that I use on it. This has made a big difference, and now my AF photos have about a one-in-three chance of being as sharp – or even sharper – than ones that I manually focus with live view. The other two out of three will usually have the AF system miss just a tiny bit, which is typical for all cameras, but the God Nikon is unforgiving. When peak sharpness really matters I'll take a few redundant photos and let the AF find its mark anew for each. That works best with static subjects, naturally, but it's an easy way to squeeze the best out of the camera.

There were only three things that I didn't like about my recently-departed D700. The big one was the 95% viewfinder. I cut my teeth on the Olympus E-1 and E-3 4/3 cameras, which had exceptional 100% viewfinders despite their smaller sensor size. The other was the resolution – it was feeling like a bad dream that, despite shifting largely to Nikon, I was still in the universe of "12 megapixels should be enough". This was part of the reason why I moved a lot of my personal photography to film, because even if the actual resolved detail isn't any better than a 12Mpx camera, the high-resolution scans look a lot nicer than scaling up an all-digital file.

My third D700 quibble was the lack of easy access to exposure bracketing. I know: who cares when the dynamic range of the camera is this good. I do, if only a little, and the D800 fixes that oversight as well. I suppose there could be more complaints about the D700, because it doesn't have a catch to hold the battery in place and had a bad door design for its left-side ports. Yes, nits are being picked, but the D800 has made those right too.

In exchange for all of these improvements, there have been a few physical changes from the D700 body to learn. The hand grip has a different profile, making for a slightly longer reach to the shutter button, and the position of the buttons to zoom in and out on the LCD review/preview have been reversed. I'm amazed at how often that change has tripped me up, especially since I didn't think I was ever all that natural with the D700. Muscle memory is a funny thing, and can't always be predicted.

There are other things to get used to, like the different batteries and ways of selecting autofocus methods, both of which are inherited from the D7000. The bigger LCD screen is nice in an irrelevant way, but not nearly as impressive as the new mostly-accurate dual-axis electronic level. All told this new camera would be a substantial upgrade even if Nikon had stuck with a more conservative sensor – but what fun would that have been?

It's already clear that Nikon has a huge success on its hands, and it looks like it's well deserved. There's still a tremendous amount for me to learn about the D800, and I may have more to say in a couple more months. Until then, I'll be taking photos and reading lens reviews.

Added April 21: My one-month report on the D800 is now on-line.

last updated 21 apr 2012