Photokina 2014: The Big Sleep

Another Photokina has come and gone and now we can make sense of what was announced. Before I touch on anything, I think it a significant point to recognize how Photokina has lost some of its luster in the past few years. Most big camera announcements do not come at Photokina. Think about it: The Fuji X100 and X Pro were both announced in early spring, as were Sony's A7 cameras. Olympus E-M5, Panasonic GH3 and GH4, Sony RX100: as far as I remember, none of them were announced at Photokina.

Still, it's the only photography-specific show with major, international coverage, so that will always make it something.

So, that said, moving on.

This was a very boring Photokina. Maybe I'm being spoiled by the world of cell phones, tablets, and computers, but I've come to expect some degree of surprise and excitement from big shows. This Photokina isn't a huge letdown, but it's far from exciting. We have Canon playing catch-up two years late. We have Nikon producing capably boring, or boringly capable, products. Panasonic continues its quest to make a m4/3 camera that is somehow smaller than the sensor. Olympus continues to release pro-thusiast gear at a glacial pace. And Leica released some products for prices that make me question the sanity of Leica fans.

The Good:

Panasonic LX100: For me, the star of the show was the Panasonic LX100, which further confirms that camera companies need to stop fucking using X's in their camera names. It has far exceeded the realm of stupid and has entered utterly baffling.

I very much like the Sony RX100 and even bought an RX10, but the images never fully lose that P&S look. The colors are never as rich as a larger sensor, the noise is always visible, and on and on. The 4/3 format is as small as you can go and maintain an image that stands up to pixel peeping, and even then, that is sometimes not true. The LX100's sensor means that this is the most compact, pro-level imaging device that you can buy, besting the Canon G1X by about a centimeter in every dimension.

All is not well with the LX100, though. The camera's viewfinder is underwhelming, and the controls aren't really the best, and it's overpriced by about $200. Also, it's too big to be pocketable, but too small to be usable with gloves, large hands, or with truly professional speed. It is at least progress, though. The Sony RX100 was the first, others copied, and now Panasonic is moving it forward again with more robust video features and a larger sensor.

Panasonic and Olympus have both hinted at the prospect of dropping m4/3 in the future. This is because they want to charge Canon-like prices for their products, but can't because they're products haven't really been all that good. Then Sony comes along with the RX1, A7, A7R, and A7S and can suddenly charge Canon prices while still selling as many cameras as they can make. Just as with the RX1, a good transitionary product for Panasonic could be a fixed-lens camera with serious video chops. It would be expensive, since video requires fantastic optical mechanics, but I bet that it would sell. I see the LX100 as a portent of this future.

The LX100 can be seen as a pocket-sized GH4 in many respects, and that is awesome. The battery is too small for significant video work, but perhaps an extended battery grip will be released. The GH4 is a fantastic product and the only product in Panny's imaging stable that is both impressive and well-priced. Some of its thunder was stolen by the amazing Sony A7S, but even then, the GH4 does many things that A7S cannot do, and does it for $1,000 less. If Panasonic isn't cowardly, they will wedge as many pro-level video features as they can into the LX100. That is the only way they will be able to justify the extreme price.

Otherwise, the $900 will be much better spent on a compact camera with interchangeable lenses.

Canon G7 X: All aboard the X train! Canon finally realizes that their P&S market will continue to erode unless they do something, and the best course of action is to copy Sony! So they did. The G7X is an RX100 with a Canon wrapper, and that's not a bad thing. Canon's wrapper is better than Sony's. It's unfortunate that the camera is priced at a premium, but ah well. Also, I will always trade a bit of size for image quality, and if I were in this market, I'd take the new LX100 over this any day of the week. But, to Canon's credit, I'd probably rather take this over the RX100.

Fuji: Fuji was pretty quiet this show. They released the updated X100T, which is a solid update. If you have the older X100's, I don't see you wanting to upgrade. If I wasn't so interested in video, I would have bought an X100 long ago.

The real progress is in Fuji's ever-growing lens system. They've produced some winners and losers, and these new lenses look like winners. I'm worried about the distortion on the 16mm lens, since Fuji has shown Olympus-like predilections when it comes to dealing with optical problems in software, but I withhold judgment. Also, Fuji appears to be getting a bit too confident as the prices on these lenses are rather high.

All in all, I like Fuji, and these does little to alter my opinion. In fairness to other companies, though, Fuji is able to do this simply because their lens system is small. Canon and Nikon have huge lens systems already and...... you know what? No. I take that back. I'm thinking as I write this, in case you couldn't tell.

Canon and Nikon could do this. They could release updates to their lenses, especially since many of them suck. But instead, they don't. They rest on lenses, some of which were designed in the 80's. So again, kudos to Fuji.

Leica D-Lux: Say wha?!... you may be saying. But yes, the overpriced Leica versions of the LX100 is a fine choice. Basically, it's because you get a license for Adobe Lightroom included with the camera, a $140-ish value. Along with what I consider to be a much more attractive design, the $100 final premium doesn't seem too bad.

Olympus E-PL7: This is almost bad, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Olympus continues to work at the small, feature-packed, mid-range camera segment with good results. None of Olympus' cameras are selling terribly well, and Fuji and Sony are slowly but surely eclipsing the m4/3 format, but they still deserve recognition when they release a decent product.

It's unfortunate, though, because both Sony and Fuji have more impressive products for the price, and in Sony's case, cheaper. Even Olympus offers the E-M10 for only $150 more. I feel that this camera will be stillborn on the market, even though I'm sure it will be fine.

Sigma: Sigma continues to impress with their new lenses for great prices and their innovative Foveon cameras. I talk up Sigma a lot since they are truly innovating. They are truly providing new tools and new experiences, not just rehashes of old ones. Their DP cameras are utterly unique and I think that everyone should own one. And since their DP cameras are such unique tools, the new viewfinder attachments don't seem bulky, they seem like a new form of imaging, because they are. Definitely the domain of deliberate professionals and enthusiasts and all but useless for Soccer Moms/Dads, these cameras have captured my imagination.

The Bad:

Samsung: Samsung continues to plug away at this mysterious product called a cam-ehr-ahh. Nothing they have hitherto produced has been correctly priced or competitive with other companies. Their sensors only very recently entered the same league as Sony, Nikon, and even Micro 4/3. Their lens selection is poor and expensive. Their workflow is poor and slow. Their system is lean. And worse still, serious photogs seem to be a corporate afterthought for a company that is making most of its money from Galaxy cell phones.

The new NX1 is an SLR-styled camera just as SLR style cameras are beginning their long, slow descent into sales Hell. It's APS-C just as Sony, Canon, and Nikon are beginning the rush to fill their product lines with Full Frame. It's among the most expensive APS-C cameras out there, besting everything that Fuji makes and cheaper than only the new, ridiculously over-priced Canon EOS 7D MkII.

The new camera will have only a single, high-end lens, which unsurprisingly is the lens they are releasing with the camera, the new 50-150mm f/2.8. That sounds like a decent lens, except that they will be charging $1,500. This isn't as badly overpriced as Panasonic and Olympus' lenses, but it's close. There is always the possibility that the image quality will be exceptional (for example, the Panasonic 42.5mm lens is priced too high, but at least the images are great) but since this is Samsung, I doubt it.

Moreover, if you are interested in saving money, you can buy very impressive lenses for cheaper than this lens from Sigma for Canon, Nikon, Sony, and even Pentax.

Basically, Samsung has given us no reason to ever consider their cameras, and this show doesn't change that.

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8: Just as with Samsung, Olympus is releasing a similar lens with a similarly stupid price. Worse for Olympus, they have superior optical designs available in their Zuiko lens line, but they incomprehensibly refuse to release them.

Panasonic GM5: The strange success of the GM1 has of course spawned the GM5. It's slightly larger but has a few more features. Just as with Sony and their bizarre feature swapping with the various versions of the RX100, the GM5 loses the flash of the GM1 and replaces it with a viewfinder and hotshoe. I feel as though Panasonic is chasing the success of the Nikon 1, without realizing that the 1 only succeeded because it was a Nikon. It was actually a terrible camera.

Moreover, to me, this is Panasonic going down a market niche that is already dead. The GM1 was a surprise to me, but it wasn't a huge hit. It was simply a success. This area of the market — compact, fashionable phones — is doomed to die. Cell phone imaging has already reached a point where most people are happy with it for their uses. And as phone companies increasingly focus on their cameras, stylish, small cameras stand no chance.

The Ugly:

Canon EOS 7D: Canon's EOS 7D Mark II was a huge disappointment. The 7D, for reasons I do not fathom, was a legend. It was a huge success, selling millions of units over its five year life. Its sequel is an event. Leave it to Canon to make that event so thoroughly meh. The 7D MkII isn't even terribly competitive with other cameras from last year.

Canon has also spent the past five years showing everyone that it doesn't give a shit about APS-C as a viable professional format. Everyone thought the 7D heralded a new wave of pro-level crop lenses, but these never appeared. We got some in the form of Sigma and Tamron's excellent crop lenses, but none from Canon. Hell, if not for Fuji and Sigma, I would say that APS-C is dead.

Along with that, Canon will cripple its video so as not to step on the toes of their more expensive video equipment. And for the honor of owning this product, you will have to pay almost as much as the Sony A7R, nearly twice as much as a Nikon D7100 or Sony A77, and right about the same price as the Nikon D600 and Canon 6D.

There is only one conclusion to draw: Canon is insane.

The Open Camera Module: Olympus should be proud. They're the only company to make all three lists. Their Open Module display was just silly. To me, this was Olympus saying "Look! We innovate and stuff too! We've got, like, ideas!"

I make this highly negative assessment because even in their presentations they say that they are unsure as to why or how anyone would use this. This is Olympus screwing around and thinking that it was viable for public presentation. It's not. Try making something that people want.

Nikon D750: It seems pretty harsh to place this under ugly, but it's because this camera is much more than just a camera, it reveals the intransigence that still holds sway at Nikon.

Basically, the entire market is changing. Camera sales are dropping. SLR sales are dropping quickly and mirrorless cameras are not picking up the slack effectively, even though their sales are increasing. This state of affairs was predicted by me, certainly, but my many, many others long before I started writing. This isn't news. Lots of people knew this was coming.

So instead of changing with the times, Nikon is doubling down, apparently under the assumption that there are hidden islands of camera-buying demographics that their current product line-up somehow doesn't cover. That is the philosophy behind the D750: there are people for whom the D610 is too cheap and the D810 is too expensive.

I do not believe these people exist. There are people who would buy the D810 if it cost as much as the D750, but Nikon isn't doing that. There are people who would buy the D610 if it had more features, but Nikon isn't doing that. Instead, they are making yet another iteration in between the two and charging a premium for it.

Panasonic CM1: Panasonic's last effort in the cell phone space was two years ago with the Eluga. It had a rather cool commercial that was ruined by five solid seconds of branding and stupid slogans. It was a catastrophe that lost Panasonic a bucket of money. It was a nice cell phone, and was one of the first to be water sealed, but they tried selling it for $700.



The phone underperformed almost every other major phone on the market. If they had sold it for $300, they might have stood a chance, but that trademark Japanese Electronics Company arrogance came out in full force and they tried charging over twice that. And today, Sony is making the news because their own smartphone division is losing buckets of money because Sony continues to try to charge a premium for their products without any actual innovation.

Not to be outdone, Panasonic is back at it, with an even more ridiculous phone at an even more ridiculous price. Since Panasonic skipped the 1" sensor altogether with the LX100, they decided to put one in a phone. A very large phone. Actually, it's not really a phone, it's a camera with a phone in it. In fact, Panasonic is even calling it a smart camera. And they're so unsure of this Frankenstein creation that they're only releasing it in France and Germany... for some reason. Oh, and they're charging 900 Euros for it.

Everything is wrong with this stupid creation. First, before I rip it to shreds, understand that I think cell phone imaging is in need of significant innovation. I thought that Sony's QX cameras were a good start, and I own a Nokia 1020, warts and all. The prospects for imaging in our little, pocket-sized supercomputers are limitless. If they had left the CM1 in the oven for a while longer, it may have come out truly desirable, but in its current form, it's like trying to make a very small layer cake instead of just baking a great cupcake.

I could really go for a cupcake right now.

Setting aside my lack of cupcakes, let's look at this cameraphone the three ways available to us: as a camera with a phone; as a phone with a camera; as a hybrid.

As a camera with a phone, it sucks. It's nothing more than a severely limited P&S in a bulky body. This is irritating because I argue that the first company to release a high-powered product with an Android OS will own the future of imaging. They refuse to do this because that would require opening up their system, and none of them want to do this. They all want to be Canon and Nikon, with their walled gardens filled with their chattle, from whom they can suck blood at will. It's the same blind greed that stops companies from releasing cell phones that are truly open.

So basically, this is a bad camera with what will likely be a mediocre phone attached to it.

Looking at it the other way around is just as problematic. This is a terrible phone. It's wide and bulky and will never fit into a jean pocket. It's nearly twice as expensive as an unlocked iPhone or Galaxy S. No one with their sights set on a phone will give this a second look.

But what about the final way? How about looking at as a unique hybrid. This is undobutedly how Panny would like you to see the phone, since it's the only way this could make sense, but a hybrid is supposed to give you the best of both worlds, not the worst. The CM1 isn't compact like a phone nor feature-rich like a camera. It has the bulk of a camera without the features!

Perhaps Panny thinks they can add features in software, but that requires a company that actually knows software, and Panny doesn't know software at all. If they promised that this will be the first in a long line of CM cameras, developers might, might, fill the breach, but that is highly unlikely when they could instead release software for Android or iOS and reach a far wider market.

For the hybrid angle to work, the CM1 would need to offer something very similar to carrying both a phone and a camera, while offering the ease of a unified body. For 900 Euros (about $1,200), I could buy an iPhone (on contract) and a new LX100 and still have money left over! The iPhone fits easily in my pocket, and I'm quite accustomed to carrying a camera around on a strap. Basically, the CM1 is the answer to a problem no one has.

That doesn't mean I think that it's not a shot in the right direction. It is. But Panasonic has proven quite well that they are not a phone company. They are better at making cameras. And make no mistake, a camera with Android is still the future, but it will only be the future when the letters attached to it are S, L, and R.

All of this is unfortunate, since I would likely buy this camera... phone... Camerhone? Cameroon? Phonera? Who cares. I would likely buy this if it wasn't such a mess and for all for an eye-watering price. I've never owned a "normal" phone. I've always owned a strange phone from a faraway land. Back in the day I was importing Nokia N-series phones for their badass cameras. Before that, I was rocking an Ericsson that was originally on Vodafone in Germany. I have a thing for weird phones, so I am perhaps the person most likely to look upon the CM1 fondly, and I still think that it's stupid.

---

And that's that. Another year, come and gone. I'm not seeing the level of competitiveness that I would have hoped for, but even this boring year is way beyond the dreary 2000's, where each year brought nothing in the way of innovation save for more, overpriced Canon and Nikon garbage. That says a lot about the industry where even a bad year is actually pretty good.

It's a good time to take photos.

Sigma Continues Its Trend of Upending The Camera Market

The very first test images from Sigma's new 50mm f/1.4 Art lens have hit the pipes. It is amazing. It's only competition is the Zeiss Otus that wowed the world two months ago.

 These shots are all wide open, so we don't know how it does stopped down yet, but it doesn't matter. To my eye, it's not quite up to the Otus, but the differences are so small as to make no real difference, especially considering that the Otus costs $4,000 while the Sigma only costs $1,500 and the Sigma has autofocus.

The important thing is that the Sigma blows the Sony/Zeiss and the Nikon out of the water and back into more water. It is amazing. Bravo Sigma for again showing other companies how it's done.

This is a great time to point out the review of the Nikon 58mm lens at Lenstip. You can always spot a good review website when they really let harsh words fly when they are called for. Most websites are terrified of pissing off the companies that buy advertising space, meaning that bad products rarely get the reviews they deserve.

The Nikon 58mm is an overpriced piece of crap, and their review says it all.

Perhaps I am naive but I admit when Zeiss announced their Otus 1.4/55 and Nikon – the Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G I though we were going to deal with two lenses which were a match for each other. It seems, though, that only Zeiss was serious about it and Nikon was joking all along, trying to sell you a rough piece of trash for a lot of money under a cover of a storied Nikon legacy. I really don’t intend to torture the tested Nikkor any longer because it is not worth the time and trouble.

This is why Oly and Panasonic piss me off so much. This is their fantasty! This is their goal! They want to be able to have such control over their closed system that they can charge comically huge prices for garbage and pad their profits on the backs of those who bought their cameras. It's bad enough that we have two companies doing this (Canon's included). The last thing we need is two more.

The New Nikon Df Is Far More Ridiculous Than I Was Expecting

Seeing as information is short right now, so will be my commentary.

The press embargo of the new Nikon DF has ended and all of the major websites are talking about it. It is a stunningly tone-deaf product. It is not an arrogant product in the way that Canon produces arrogant products, but it is a stupid product.

First, the price is eye-watering, especially in the face of the already-released Sony A7 and A7R. $2,750 for just the body places it in D800 territory, and seeing as the size of this camera isn't that much smaller than other SLR cameras, only a maniac would choose this over the D800 or D610.

After learning that the D600, and now likely the D610, will be selling at discounts from the MSRP at most dealers, that means the DF will sell for a one-thousand dollar premium over the D610, which is better-specced in every way.

Everything about this camera is a step backward technologically. This is Nikon seeing the huge success of the Olympus E-M5 and Fuji X-series, and thinking that they can throw a dash of retro appeal onto a camera and jack its price way up. Nope. Sorry, Nikon. The market no longer works that way. The retro appeal functions only to keep your product competitive. It does not give you an advantage that allows a sky-high price. Because make no mistake, this is a sky-high price.

The Fuji X-Series sold well because it was cutting edge while also being retro. The Olympus E-M5 was the best Micro 4/3 camera to date while also being retro. The Sony RX1/10/100 sell well because they are the bleeding edge. Nikon has none of this!

This is perhaps Nikon shooting for a bit of Leica, but as with every computer company and their attempts to sell their products for Apple prices, people don't buy Leica. They buy Leica. The name accounts for the majority of the value for most Leica customers. There is legacy, and history, and a romantic narrative. Nikon has absolutely none of that.

This is a big disappointment. When I saw the first images of this camera, I must admit, I got a bit excited. This is such a let-down.

Long story short, don't buy this camera. It will be discounted down to around $2,000 within six-months of release. Then, don't buy this camera. Buy the D610 instead. It may not look retro, but it's a much better tool. And while I'm more than susceptible to the romance of photography, even I recognize that a camera's primary job is as a tool for producing images.

Nikon Starts to Sweat

I think that Nikon is starting to sweat.

It is perhaps not surprising that of the big two, Nikon blinked first. After all, they are significantly smaller than Canon — less than a fifth the size. But blinked they have, and change is coming in the form of two very nondescript horsemen: the D5300 and the D610. The D5100 was available for two years before being replaced by the D5200. That camera has now been available for less than six months and we have its replacement. It's a very small update, but is being advertised by Nikon as a full update, and really, that's the important part.

The same goes for the D610. Nikon is giving us the softer sell on this one. It's a small number change and a small camera change. The biggest point of interest is the lower price. That's important because camera companies rely on their networks to hide cheap cameras. They officially "sell" a camera for, say, $1,000, but no one actually pays that much. All of the official resellers are selling the camera for $800. This isn't advertised because the camera company wants to maintain an air of exclusivity and, hopefully, trick a few people into paying full price.

This again brings me back to my post about the D610 and EOD 6D selling at discount. Was that the first sign of trouble, when they had to sell their much-ballyhooed cheapest full-frames ever at an even lower price to gain traction? Had they simply assumed that a lower price would make people come running, and that didn't happen?

Regardless, the point of greatest significance in this is that Nikon has released updates to major cameras very quickly. They've never done this before in the digital age. They are trying to appear that they are iterating quickly to keep the market interested and excited about Nikon products, years after people stopped being excited about Nikon products. So, yes, they're late to this realization, but they have at least realized it. Canon hasn't even had the good grace to do that.

How Long have the EOS 6D and D600 Been Discounted?

I was just made aware that the Canon EOS 6D is being discounted by pretty much everyone. It can be had for $200 below MSRP online and many independent shops are selling it for $300-$500 off MSRP.

First, I'm surprised to see these prices. As far as I know, the 6D has been a monster hit for Canon. There's no reason for a big success to discount. Is it possible that the 6D has not been a success? Every dealer I know says it sold well.

This leaves open the possibility that the 6D sold well only because of discounts at the dealer level. Lord knows, we see that often enough in the camera world.

In confusion, I checked the primary competitor to the 6D, the Nikon D600, which has been an even bigger hit, and it is seeing similar discounts. I found two dealers with advertised prices for the D600 of $1,699 (all of my prices assume body-only).

Perhaps Canon and Nikon both realized that entry-level FF cameras desperately needed to be well below $2,000? Because, well, that's true. The cameras at the $1,000 price point are getting incredibly good, with Fuji's cameras rocking very similar noise performance. On the high end, the Sony RX1 and the Nikon D800 made obsolete any cameras even close in price. As such, both corporations did a top-down, not-advertised policy of discounting. That would certainly drive sales.

Regardless, while I am no fan of the Canon 6D, if you can net a new one for $1,500, it's hands-down worth it. The Nikon D600 is even more worth it. A saying that I've always liked is "there are no bad products, only bad prices." I thought the 6D was crap, but only for its original price. Lop a few hundred dollars off and it's a great time to enter the world of full-frame gear.

The New Sigma f/1.8 Zoom Is The First Lens of The Post-Speed Booster Era

I said that the world had changed after Metabones announced their Speed Booster image-reducing lens adapter. To recap, what the Speed Booster does is take all of the light gathered by a full-frame lens and squeeze it down into an image circle that just fits an APS-C sensor. This does two things, first it eliminates the need for crop factor. Since the APS-C sensor is no longer taking only a small, center crop of the FF lens' image, it's no longer acting like a zoom. A 50mm full-frame lens no longer equals a 75mm APS-C lens. The final image is the same.

Second, it makes the image brighter. An f/2.8 full-frame lens increases in brightness to f/1.8 when all of that light is focused on the smaller APS-C sensor. It's wonderful.

There was nothing stopping lens companies from doing this. Canon, Nikon, et al., they could have made their FF lenses brighter on APS-C cameras with relatively small alterations to their FF lens optics. They did not do this because of greed.

Canon, Nikon, Sony: all of the camera companies make more money by restricting freedom. If they give you flexibility in how you manage your hardware, they limit their ability to squeeze money from your pockets. As such, it has taken them this long to simply take larger, FF lenses and squeeze them onto the APS-C sensor.

Indeed, even companies that exist solely as a discount alternative to system lenses, such as Sigma, display this greed.

Sigma is the first to respond, though. They have released an f/1.8 constant aperture zoom lens for APS-C sensors. It has an 18-35mm range, which equate to 27-52.5mm on full-frame, give or take a milimeter.

Usually, designing a lens and bringing it to market can take a long time — one to two years. I don't think that was the case with this lens. I suspect that they basically took an extant optical design and simply installed a Speedbooster-like optical element at the back of the lens.

Sigma does not have a FF lens with those specs, but they do have a discontinued lens that is 28-70mm f/2.8. That lens would equal around an 18-44mm f/1.8 on the Speed  Booster.

Moreover, if we analyze the measurements of the lens, we find similarly corroborating evidence. The 28-70mm Sigma lens weighs 18oz. The new 18-35mm lens weighs 28.6 oz. (If nothing else, the sheer weight and size of the lens confirms FF optics)

The Metabones Speed Booster with AF support weighs 7oz, giving the 28-70mm a weight of 25oz. Not exact, but close.

Similarly, the 28-70mm is 2.91" in diameter. Very close to the 18-35mm's 3.1". The length of the 28-70mm with the Metabones adapter attached is 4.43". Decently close to the 4.8" of the new 18-35mm, but not definitive.

All things considered, I think that this lens was a relatively quick rejiggering of an optical design they already had. When Sigma says that the design was difficult, I think they are lying. They are lying because they want to justify the very high price they are undoubtedly going to ask for it. Remember, this is the same company that tried to sell the SD-1 for $10,000.

Panasonic Shines, Nikon Shits The Bed

We have two pretty big DxOMarks to discuss: the Panasonic GH3 and the Nikon 1 J3. I'd like to first talk about the Nikon because, ya' know, bad news first and all that. Basically, the 1 cameras started off pretty poor. They were expensive, with meager optics, and image quality that was closer to compact P&S cameras than 4/3. Worse still, the Sony RX100 came out and so soundly defeated the poor Nikon that it essentially obviated the latter's existence entirely.

It's been over a year since the 1 cameras released, and we are now on the third generation of them. And much like the early trajectory of Micro 4/3, instead of progressing, Nikon actually appears to be regressing with their little "toy" cameras. The Nikon J1 scored 56 on DxOMark (ten points behind the Sony RX100), and the more expensive V1 scored a 54. The J2, released six months later, scored a 54. The new J3, released six months after that, has no scored a 52. The $800 V2 scored an utterly pathetic 50.

I feel the need to again express the perspective from which I lampoon companies and use words like "pathetic." I am very, completely, keenly aware that any camera, in the right situation, produces good images and am certainly a follower of the assertion that the best camera is the one that you have with you. That said, all products that are for sale do not exist as standalone tools that are judged on their own merits alone. They are also judged based on the other options in the marketplace.

Thus, when one company sells a product that targets a similar market as another company's product, but under-performs that other company's product in every way, they are rightfully worthy of mockery. This company is saying to customers "give us your hard-earned money for this product." Thus, if the product turns out to be inferior to other products, it is an infuriating thing. It's as though the company tricked the customer into buying something that she could have bought more cheaply or better made elsewhere.

That said, let's move on. The Nikon 1 was a mess from the beginning. It was cowardly product meant to avoid competition with Nikon's APS-C cameras, which themselves are crippled and meant to avoid competition with Nikon's FF gear. It is an large, integrated system of products that aren't as good as they could be.

I close this part of the article with a reiteration: only a maniac would buy the Nikon 1 at full price.

Now, for the good news. Panasonic's GH3, like the Nikon, has its fair share of compromises obviously meant to allow Panasonic to sell more expensive video-oriented gear. It also have a detail that has grown to increasingly annoy me: slow flash sync. Most prothusiast cameras have a flash sync in the neighborhood of 1/250th sec. Mirrorless cameras seem to have ditched this entirely in favor of 1/160th, sometimes even lower. Olympus is the sole company producing a mirrorless camera with the hallowed 1/250th sync with the E-M5.

That is but a single aspect of the camera that is annoying, and there are others, but by and large, the camera is a success. It is an undeniable evolution of the GH2, even though it lacks the multi-aspect sensor. It manages to combine video and photo in a way that is truly unique in the market. If Panasonic had not decided to price the camera so high, it would be the camera to own for Micro 4/3 and perhaps the entire mirrorless market.

So how is this good news? Because, DxOMark has confirmed that the sensor in the GH3 performs just as well as the very good sensor in the E-M5. There are very minor differences, and most of them likely fall into the realm of statistically insignificant, so the two cameras are, for all intents and purposes, the same.

I'm very happy with this result. Most people who had been following the GH3 or handled it, as I have, pretty much expected these numbers. There are no surprises, which is both a good and a bad thing.

The biggest problem facing the GH3 remains its price. Camera stores are pricing it past the Fuji X Pro 1, and even at MSRP it is more expensive than the E-M5, X-E1, Sony NEX-7 and 6, and more than twice the price of the GH2, which remains its biggest competitor and is still quasi-available. I own a GH2 and have zero motivation to pay such a massive premium for the upgrade. The GH3's price is, like the X-Series lenses, untenable.

I see this as part of Panasonic's problem, and the reason why the entire company is in the financial toilet (the company's stock is trading at the same level as it did in 1985). Panasonic is like Sony in the belief that it can still charge the premiums that it demanded back in the 80's and 90's based on its mere status as being made in Japan. Sorry guys. We here in the US are well disabused of such a notion compliments of when your products put all of us out of business thirty years ago. You better learn the same lesson but quick, else you'll end up in the same place as Zenith.

Nikon V2 Gets Images Reviewed

While at Focus Numerque, I noticed that they had posted images of the Nikon V2, the camera that fans of the system (if there are any) hoped would bring it up a notch and into better fighting shape against the Sony RX100.

Those fans are going to be disappointed. The V2 has its IQ ass handed to it by the RX100, its only sensor format competitor. Yes, IQ isn't everything, but the images aren't even a competition. Combined with the fact that the RX100 drops to ISO-50, there is no comparison. The V1/J1 were made pathetically obsolete by the RX100 and the V2 does nothing to alleviate that situation.

How The Hell Did Having No AA Filter Become THE Feature To Have?

I must express total confusion as to how having no AA filter became the de rigeur feature for digital camera to have. Both of Olympus' new cameras, the Mini and Lite, have none. The new Pentax K5-II, none. The Nikon D800E, goin' au naturale.

I'm confused by this because in the grand scheme of camera features that I want, no-AA filter is WAY down the list. I want more media choices, faster write times, better lenses, longer battery life, etc. I'm not even thinking about the sensor, since much of what the sensor does is out of the control of the company making the camera. All I'm thinking about are elements that can easily be bolted on from extant technology and features.

Like for Olympus, I want an adapter that lets me use the damned 4/3 lenses! They don't even need to make a new set of lenses! Just do what Sony did. But instead of that, Oly has given us... no AA filter? W the F?

The lack of AA filter does seem to increase the amount of light hitting the sensor, which is great. The upcoming Sony A99 is rumored to have no filter, and it will need it. The SLT mirror takes a big whack out of a camera's ISO performance. It also causes some softness, which will act like an AA filter. And for smaller sensors like those in 4/3, any ISO increase is desirable.

But again, what about the other features!? Why is everyone talking about the lack of AA filters as though it is the next thing from Apple? How in the world did this become the biggest point of discussion?

I think that it is a conspiracy to deflect our attention from other, more useful features that camera companies don't want us to have. It probably has something to do with the upcoming Mayan Apocalypse  Yes. That's it. Camera companies are actually run by Mayans! It's not the end of the world, it is the rise of the Mayans! They're coming back and they are using our cameras to do it!

Hooooo-wee! Nikon D600 Tops The Charts!

Well, not quite. It's in third place over at DxOMark. Behind the D800 and D800E. So in the world of performance per dollar, it's #1. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this only further relegates the recently-announced Canon EOS 6D to "why the fuck do you even exist?" status. I'm still not the biggest fan of the D600 because they didn't drop the price to below $2,000, but this test result makes it much easier to like.

Yes, yes, it's only $100 more than that target, but I see the fact that they didn't go for the sub-$2,000 price as further evidence for the severe conservatism in place at Nikon. They were very aggressive with the feature set, which is nice, but that price sticks in my craw. And since this area of the market just got real competitive, real quick, it makes it all the more important to take bold steps in design and pricing.

Moreover, the price of the D800 makes this camera's price harder to see as, not reasonable, but sensible. When I can get the greatest camera ever (for the time being) for less than 50% more, why wouldn't I want and save up? It's smaller and a bit lighter, but in this size category, the lenses are going to negate any noticeable difference.

It must be recognized that Nikon is stepping up their game. I remember the shock and awe when Nikon priced the D3X into the Oort Cloud. The D800 and D600 indicate that they are never likely to do something that arrogant again, especially seeing as they lost nearly half of their market to Canon during the time that the D3X was king. We have a new king, and this time, he isn't handicapped with a ridiculous price.

Now let's see what Sony has up its sleeves.

"Sony Can't Get All The Attention!", Says Nikon's D600

Sony is getting all of the attention recently, and rightfully so. The RX1 is groundbreaking, and both the NEX-6 and A99 are incredibly competent cameras that push things further than Canon, Nikon, Olympus, or Panasonic have proven willing (capable?) of doing. The only other company out there that is even in the same ballpark as Sony is Fuji.

But that doesn't mean that the others are sitting still. Well, maybe it does, but we have a week's worth of announcements coming up before we find out. Next up: Nikon. Sony shot first, probably because Sony had the best stuff, but that's beside the point. The point is... what is the point? Don't do drugs is the point.

Where am I? The D600! That's where. The new D600 is a cheap, FF camera. It will cost $2,099. And trust me, that price is the most exciting element of the camera. I actually find the rest of it underwhelming. For example, the flash-sync is only 1/200th. That may seem like a small thing, but I see it as representative of a greater philosophy surrounding this camera. The maximum speed is only 1/4000th. That is base-level APS-C camera territory. It can do 5fps, but I don't know if that is some sort of speed priority or not. If not, that's good speed. It is weather-sealed, so it will be a suitable working camera.

The price is decently exciting, I must admit. Nikon jumped to where I think Sony should have already: compete with pro-thusiast APS-C cameras with cheap full-frame. I'm really puzzled about why Nikon didn't drop the camera to $1,999. It would have been only $100, and only $50 of which would be felt by Nikon. That would undoubtedly be made up for by the increased number of customers who react to the psychological barrier of sub-$2,000 pricing. This smacks of a company trying to "fit" a product into their selection of other products.

The other element of this camera's philosophy that is classic Nikon is the intransigence inherent in its genesis. Basically, this is Nikon doubling down on its traditional designs. There are two ways to increase value for a customer: increase product, or decrease price. The former is the domain of driving, innovative companies like Apple. That's not a fundamentally better place than a company that drives down prices — just look at Wal-Mart — but it is the place that evinces life inside a company. Ideally, most companies should be a combination of both, thus remaining competitive in all ways.

Nikon is only doing one. Instead of innovating, they are simply reducing their prices. And as I mentioned with my confusion over the price, they aren't even doing that very well. Nikon abjectly refuses to accept that the market is shifting. We are experiencing a large shift toward cell phones and mirrorless cameras. The market doesn't care that Nikon's system is built around a mirror. Nor will the market accept a half-asses piece of crap meant to fit in with extant products like the Nikon "1", which, by the way, has essentially been confirmed as dead with the release of a single, simple lens by Nikon.

So yes, the Nikon D600 is a pretty good camera. It should be $1,999. It should have some features expected in a camera of its price. It shouldn't be the most innovative camera to come out of Nikon in over half a decade. I don't count the D800 as a Nikon innovation since the sensor was designed and built by Sony.

Will any photog who buys this be happy. I'm 100% sure that they will. Images produced by yesterday's technology are still great images. But this isn't just an issue of images and cameras, it's an issue of technology and market development. Nikon is standing still, stubbornly so, and demanding premiums for the privilege of standing with them. It's one of the things that pisses me off about Leica, which has turned that behavior into an art form. When companies like Fuji, Sony, and to a degree Olympus and Panasonic, are willing to innovate —  to find new ways to implement technology —  not only do I see no reason to stand with Nikon, the arrogance required to claim that I should pisses me off.

The Android Camera Revolution Is Not Yet Here

I have yet to comment on the upcoming Nikon S800c, which initially appears odd. I have frequently said that the company that is first to turn their cameras into a platform is the company that will rule the next generation of cameras. I expected that company to be one of the smaller players — Panasonic, maybe Samsung — and   that prediction may yet hold true. Oh sure, Nikon has announced a camera. And it does have Android. But to say that it's something special is something different entirely.

The S800c is a relatively low-end digital camera. Its ergonomics, build, design, optics, and sensor are all budget-level hardware. The only thing that stands out is the inclusion of Android. And that, right there, is the reason why this is nothing. Simply releasing a cell phone with a big lens and no cellular radio is not what I mean when I say a camera as a platform. I mean that Nikon needs to design and implement an entire standard around the OS. I'm talking a platform, with an API, a marketplace, and stadardized hardware.

A camera that will produce images barely in excess of the iPhone, will have no software produced especially for it, and still costs $30 more than most people will pay for an iPhone is not a revolution. It's not even an attempt. It's Nikon, hoping to trick a few idiots out of some money.

You may be thinking that Nokia has brought the revolution with their jaw-dropping 808 Pureview. While they could do this, they would need to completely redirect their efforts. The 808, and the eventual Windows Phone Pureview phones, are all cell phones first, cameras second. We need a camera company that is going to release top-flight, professional imaging gear with Android as the OS and their ordinary camera imaging software as either a parallel OS or an application.

We need a company that is going to lay down the foundation on which application developers can do great work. We need a company that is going to create a standard so developers know for what they are creating applications. The future belongs to the company that is going to create and than shepherd a tight integration of technology and software and make it easy for others to participate. It does not belong to a company that releases the products about which it actually cares with all of the same, old shackles and restrictions that they always have.

This camera is worthy of no attention. The inclusion of Android is a gimmick. It will fail to sell. It is not the future.

It's Not All Bad For Canon: EOS 1DX Gets Solid Review

TechRadar, a solid website with good reviews, has posted its early review of the Canon EOS 1DX. This is, as far as I know, the first review for the new Canon. TechRadar is significant because they are usually the first publication that posts signal/noise charts and dynamic range charts for cameras. They were the first to show the Olympus E-M5's significant improvement in DR over earlier M4/3 cameras and the first to show that the Sony NEX-7 was indeed going to be a monster.

Unlike the EOS 5D Mark III, this camera is not a total disappointment. Its performance seems to be on par with the Nikon D4, with the D4 producing better stuff at low ISO, but significantly for a pro camera aimed at high-speed environments, the 1DX produces significantly better stuff at high-ISO. This is a pretty significant knock against the D4, since anyone interested in slow, low-ISO work will obviously choose the D800.

Oh yes. The D800. Sitting on the sidelines like some kind of bugbear. Its very existence made the D4 seem pointless, and it has a similar effect on the 1DX. When the D4 is $6,000, and the 1DX is a wallet-destroying $6,800, the limitations of the D800, at less than half the price, don't seem quite so big.

One thing that I can say for the EOS 1DX over the D4, though, is its speed: 12fps. It costs a lot, but that speed is truly impressive. But even here, the 1DX will not have this advantage for long, since all of Sony's upcoming Full Frame cameras will have equal speeds or higher.

The sheer price of the camera, combined with the existence of the D800 and Sony's upcoming cameras, make this a non-starter for a pro looking to enter a system. It also, again, reveals Canon's arrogance. When so much competition exists, and even more competition is soon-to-come, this would be the time to lower prices and push out new products. Canon isn't doing that.

First Nikon D800 Medium Format Comparison

Camera Labs has published a quick comparison of shots between the Nikon D800 (the non-E version) and the beastly Phase One IQ160 60MP. I would have preferred a comparison with the Pentax 645D, since it is the closest in both resolution and price. While we can go to DPReview and use their comparison tool, any good photog knows that the studio shots that are conducive to standardized testing are rarely a good measure of a camera's real-world resolution abilities. That's what makes side-by-side, landscape comparisons like this so useful.

Regardless, it is a foregone conclusion that the Phase One out-resolves the Nikon. In some cases, by a noticeable margin. Unfortunately, the lens choice on the Nikon is not Nikon's sharpest lens. A good prime would have been a better choice. Still, as is mentioned in the article, the difference cannot be wholly attributed to the lens — the Phase One is resolving an amazing level of detail. I think a more interesting choice would have been the Nikon D800E since, without the AA filter, it is more architecturally similar to the P1.

One thing that I took from the comparison is that the medium format companies will have to bring their A-game yet again. I remember writing years ago that I thought medium format was a pointless purchase. Phase One then came out with a back that had more than double the resolution of FF cameras at the time, and I was made a believer (a believer that could never afford one, but a believer nonetheless). Now, the FF crew has stepped up their game and closed the gap between them at MF to such a degree to again make the massive price premium, to my eye, not worth it. The 80MP IQ180 is still in a class of its own, and if you need it, you need it. But every step down from that makes the D800 loom ever larger. Perhaps its because back then, the numbers were so small as to make any jump immediately noticeable. The jump from 36 to 60 is smaller than the numbers make it appear.

But likewise, at numbers this high, the correct comparison can reveal a camera's true abilities, and that may not be happening here. A studio model, or a more complex landscape may provide the images that "pop" in the same way that the mountains in the upper-left of Camera Labs' test pop in the Phase One's image. It's very impressive.

Nikon D800E Bests D800 In... ISO Performance?

DxOMark has run the venerable Nikon D800E through the ringer and it has come out on the very top of the digital camera heap. This is quite odd considering that it's the same camera as the D800, it only has one extra layer over the sensor.

The D800E is an odd sensor. One would expect a company to simply remove the AA filter if it wants to eliminate the AA effect. But apparently this would have been difficult, requiring two distinct manufacturing lines. Nikon's solution is to have a line that makes the standard sensor and another line that makes the AA filter sandwich. The sandwich has three parts, two of which are diffractive. One filter diffracts horizontally, the other vertically. The last step in that sandwich is switched from the vertical filter to another horizontal filter that acts like a de-diffraction filter.

With all of that optical jiggery going on, one would expect, if anything, a slight drop in ISO performance since no filter, no matter how perfect, will not transmit 100% of received light. Somehow, the D800E actually exceeds the D800. The only thing that I can think is that the act of diffracting a a serving of light over a larger area results in more light being lost to areas on the sensor that cannot collect photons, perhaps even off the edge of the sensor.

Also, it could just be variations between camera examples.

Canon, Nikon, and Sony Are All Building Cheap Full-Frame Cameras... Why?

The Nikon D600

Oh the insanity. Photos of the supposed Nikon D600 have hit the web -no surprise, at xitech- all but confirming the existence of the cheap, full-frame camera. This combines with rumors that both Canon and Sony also have sub-$2,000 full-frame cameras in the works.

I'm sure that many people see this as shrewd behavior on the part of the entrenched players to keep their market shares secure. I think that it represents something much more pathetic... and puzzling! What this really indicates is that all of the major players in the traditional SLR industry have abandoned the APS-C market, even though it still has a great deal of interest in the enthusiast demographics. The fantastic performance of Sony's newest sensors, and the era-defining performance of the Fuji X Pro 1, confirm this.

Why do I see this as an abandonment? First, let's look at some points.

• I was puzzled when Canon and Nikon didn't double-down on their compact, entry-level cameras in response to Micro 4/3's early success.
• Nikon's most exciting APS-C camera is the near-entry-level D3200, with 24-thundering-megapixels. I think that this is obviously targeted at Micro 4/3.
• Nikon's DX lenses, though, are mostly crap. Canon and Sony are similar, with their APS-C lenses playing an absolute second fiddle to the FF gear.
• Canon and Nikon have a complete aversion to prime lenses, with their 28mm primes being some two decades old.
• Instead of releasing an APS-C mirrorless system to compete with Sony, Nikon releases the "1" and Canon releases the G1X.
• Canon's 7D and Nikon's D300 haven't been refreshed in three years. And in that time, not a single APS-C lens has been released.
• Sony's been rumored to have been working on a sub-$2000 full-frame camera for some time to replace the Alpha A850.
• Sony has announced increased development of the NEX line, with an accelerated lens release map and cameras coming out every eight months.
• The Olympus E-M5 is a break-out hit, becoming Olympus' most popular camera on Flickr after less than a month on the market.
• The E-M5 has made the important step of reducing the performance difference between it and the APS-C competition to a level that doesn't much matter. To achieve a significant performance increase, users would need to upgrade to FF or the X Pro 1.
• Fuji's amazing X Pro 1 has had the enthusiast community all a twitter in ways that Nikon and Canon haven't in years. I should know, every page I post on the X Pro 1 garners hundreds (and in a few cases, thousands) of page views. My posts on Canon and Nikon: no more than a few dozen in some cases.

All of these points taken together make it seem that the major three, perhaps in response to Fuji and Micro 4/3, are relegating APS-C to the sub-$1,000 market. Anything even remotely desirable to enthusiasts will thus be full frame.

This makes no sense to me. Cheap full-frames are great, but APS-C makes more sense in almost every way for products in the sub-$2k market. People who will be interested in this price range are also people who will be sensitive to lens prices and FF lenses cost more. And if people who have the money for FF are in the market, they won't be willing to downgrade on the camera since they desire the best out of their already-expensive glass.

There are those who desire something other than absolute image quality, such as myself, and instead desire other things. This is the thing that Olympus and Panasonic seem incapable of understanding: their Micro 4/3 cameras became super-popular among enthusiasts who already had gear because they were so damned small. Some people desire discreteness and portability. A company cannot provide that with FF equipment, especially the gigantic zoom lenses that Nikon and Canon love. Micro 4/3 has obviously proven to be the best at this, but Sony has shown that APS-C can definitely give them a run for their money. And if Sony can provide more lenses to go along with their Zeiss 24mm, many pros will simply skip the low-level FF gear.

Full frame will never compete with Micro 4/3 or APS-C in size. I would wager that the Leica M9 is as compact as FF could ever go, and the M9 isn't exactly petit, nor is it light. The M9 weighs 600g with card and battery. The NEX-5n weighs 269g. The NEX-7, 353g. The Olympus E-M5 is positively porky at 425g. The Nikon D800 weighs in at 900g, while the heaviest current APS-C camera that I could find was the Sony A77 at 732g. The heaviest APS-C camera that I could find is over 160g lighter than the lightest FF camera.

I ranted about how Canon should have shifted the EOS 7D successor into the APS-H design, and perhaps they are doing this. But that was because Canon's sensors are terrible in comparison to the newest generation of Sony/Nikon/Fuji, not because I thought that APS-C was fundamentally limited.

All Canon and Nikon had to do was stop treating their APS-C camera market like second-class customers. That's it! I always thought that they should have doubled down on their compact APS-C cameras, push out some high-quality primes, and call it done. Micro 4/3 would have been effectively competed with. But, no. Instead they gave Olympus and Panasonic enough time to actually manage some semblance of market share even though both companies are run by bumbling idiots.

I'm so angry, I don't even know why I'm angry. We are getting cheap full-frame gear, which is great. I think. I think that I'm pissy because they are fragmenting the market even more. Nikon produced the stupid "1" series of cameras, and that's annoying because it means that money that could be put into the development of better APS-C and FF lenses was instead put into an over-priced, glorified, point-and-shoot intended for soccer moms.

I also find this irritating because it appears that, based on these actions, that Cankon do not treat Micro 4/3 as legitimate competition for them. Nikon sends the crippled D3200 to do battle with the GX1 and E-M5. Is the sensor better? Yes. Is absolutely everything else worse? Also yes. And by disregarding 4/3, they are by connection disregarding those who use it. We see similar arrogance in Canon creating the Cinema series of cameras and ignoring the SLR market, because who cares about filmmakers who are on a budget? Fuck'em.

Again, I give Sony credit since they are actively trying to merge their systems with the NEX adapter for their Alpha lenses. It's obvious that they are treating the compact, APS-C market as a legitimate playground for enthusiasts. They are pushing video technology forward, keeping prices down, and creating innovative, exciting products.

All companies must increase value to survive. This behavior is increasing value through price alone. They can't just say "Hey! We made a camera that's rather similar to this more expensive camera, just worse in a few key ways! But it's cheaper!" The cameras need to provide something different. That's why the far-and-away most popular Micro 4/3 camera was also the most expensive: the GF1. It cost nine-hundred-dollars when it launched in 2009. That's a lot for a camera that was pretty soundly outperformed in most ways by the competition. It immediately became a monster hit, though, because it provided something different.

DPReview even said of the GF1,

Another clue as to how much we liked the GF1 is that people in the office have actually been shelling out their own money to buy them, something almost unheard of in an office with cupboards full of all the latest cameras.

That is the power of different.

There is one way that Cankon could blow my mind: a mirrorless full-frame camera. I seriously, seriously doubt that this will happen, but it would be very cool. It would provide the power of FF, be more compact than full-sized SLR cameras, and provide whichever company produces it an excuse to actually make some decent, compact primes. A compact, FF camera for under $2,000? That would sell very well indeed, and be complimentary to existing FF hardware.

That's what I want. I want entry, middle, high, and top-pro. Complimentary segments. Currently there is chaos. These actions will inject even more chaos because NONE of the companies will be willing to back up their cheap FF cameras with good glass. And if Cankon produce some mirrorless cameras, the lenses for those will be absolute crap as well. All we'll get is more goddamned zooms.

DPReview Posts D800/D800E Comparison

DPReview has posted its comparison of the Nikon D800 and D800E. The results are... whelming. First off, if you don't already know, the D800E is exactly like the D800 except that it has an additional layer of sensor-level light diffraction that nullifies the effects of the AA filter. This increases the resolution of the sensor. After so many experiences with cameras with increasingly light filters, I was expecting to see a big boost. I didn't get it.

That's not to say that there isn't a resolution increase, there most certainly is. It's just not very big. I'm a pixel-peeper and proud of it, but this is some truly academic pixel-peeping. What can best be said for the difference is an overall, slight-but-noticeable increase in texture. It's as though a slight haze has been removed from the image, which is exactly what has happened.

But the dreaded moire is alive and well in the shots. If you take primarily nature shots, the increased resolution will probably be desireable, but for anyone who does work with textures or urban environments, moire can be a pain in the ass. As DPReview's various resolution tests show, even with today's AA filters in place, false color can be pretty easily coaxed from cameras. In the D800E shots, it's visible in repeating patterns in the houses, but it's also visible in the clover in the center of the scene.

Moreover, as soon as you leave the tack-sharp center area of the lens, the difference disappears. Similarly, the difference fades when stopped down to f/16. Still, the extra resolution is there. It is apparent. With the AA filter negated, the D800E is undoubtedly the resolution king of anything below medium format. Given the choice, I think the D800E is worth the extra two-hundred bucks, especially if you plan on doing a lot of post production work where you'll have the time to spot and remove moire.

DxO Mark Hails The Nikon D3200 (With Caveats)

As with Camera Labs a couple of days ago, DxO Mark has published their analysis of the Nikon D3200, and the results are fantastic. It achieves a total score of 81, putting it second behind the Pentax K5, which was a masterpiece of signal processing.

It's DxO Score is also equal with the new Canon 5D Mark III, but remember, the Mark III's ISO performance is more than double that D3200. It makes up for it in the dynamic range and color depth. That has been the real selling point of these new Sony sensors, the DR and color. They are just mind-blowing, as exemplified in the world-beating Nikon D800.

Something that I didn't specifically notice, but was discussed in the review, reminds me why I'm still angry at Nikon, even though not so much as I am at Canon.

Deprived of bracketing mode as well, the D3200 will be tough to seriously consider for users thinking about HDR photographer or those who are used to taking multiple photos to ensure correct exposure. This limitation, by the way, is strictly a matter of software and a deliberate choice on Nikon’s part in order to create differences between camera lines. The D5100, offered at the same price, is equipped with bracketing function.

Furthermore...

For as much as we salute Nikon’s bold strategy of putting the best sensors into cameras designed for the general public, we cannot help but regret the quality of the JPEGs that the D3200 generates, which seems a priori below that of its competitors… due to the limitations Nikon has imposed on its software.

That is arrogance. Pure, unadulterated arrogance. When a company purposely and arbitrarily differentiates products for the sake of squeezing more money from its customers, it is dying. It may take awhile, but we're seeing it in the Sony corpus. No matter how big and proud a company is, it can die. Canon in its current form is doomed, but Nikon should also be worried.

That said, the D3200's performance is excellent. Compared to the Sony NEX-7, the slight ISO advantage that can be seen in some tests is mirrored, with the Nikon scoring 100 more points than the Sony. Color and DR are essentially identical, but that noise performance is somewhat visible. Nikon's pipeline and Sony's sensor should be praised. As DxO says, if you are willing to process RAW files, you will get some amazing, pro-level photos out of this camera.

And that's the rub: if you process RAW. Their JPEGs are not good, meaning that this camera will never be a great choice for your average family customer who just wants to point, press a button, and have the camera magically make photos happen. It's as though this is Nikon's response to the growing popularity of enthusiast cameras in the Micro 4/3 and NEX line, seeing as the overpriced Nikon "1" series sure as hell doesn't compete.

And maybe that's it. This is not meant for the average consumer. This is meant to keep people away from Micro 4/3 and Sony. Those people process RAW. Those people care about sensor performance. Those people may be lured away by one of the smallest mirror-&-prism cameras on the market and be willing to make some concessions in size for a sensor that absolutely outperforms everything in the 4/3 system and has more lenses than the NEX system.

If that's the case... that's remarkably shrewd. This is what I always expected the major companies to do, and they... sort... of... never did. I expected Canon and Nikon to double-down on their entry-level, small, APS-C cameras in response to Micro 4/3 and push the advantages of their sensors. Instead, Canon didn't do shit with their sensors and Nikon produced the laughable "1" series.

If this is intended to do battle with 4/3, they should have released this two years ago.

Camera Labs Posts D3200 Review

Cameras Labs, one of the very few camera websites that I read and take completely seriously, has posted its review of the Nikon D3200. If you don't already know, the D3200 is Nikon's new entry-level SLR camera that's rocking the same 24MP sensor as the Sony NEX-7 and A77/65.

The D3200 is a great camera, and further evidence as to why Canon should be very worried. The Nikon has 24MP... 24MP, and it outperforms the similarly-priced Canon 550D/600D even though that only needs to handle 18MP.

Noise performance in the tests is similar to other tests, placing the D3200 ahead of the NEX-7 at some ISO's and behind it in others. How odd. Something that is very noticeable, at least to me, is better sensitivity to blue compared to Sony's implementations of the sensor. In general, though, I would describe the image quality as nearly identical to the NEX-7.

The D3200 is about as small as you're going to get with a full mirror-&-prism set-up, and with the excellent workflow of Nikon, and access to Nikon's FF lenses if desired, the D3200 is really shaping up to be an excellent entry-level camera. The only issue that I see is that cameras from Sony, and even Panasonic and Olympus, offer greater speed and better per-pixel ISO performance, which isn't surprising with 24-freakin-megapixels wedged onto an APS-C sensor.

If you are considering this in comparison to a Canon, the choice is a no-brainer: the Nikon. Even with 24MP, the Nikon outperforms all of Canon's APS-C cameras as regards noise levels. But if you are looking into Sony, Panasonic, or Olympus, your choices are more difficult. The new Olympus E-M5 offers better noise performance and exceptional speed. Doubly to their advantage is the speed of Micro 4/3 lenses, with many cheap lenses having two, or even three, stops performance better than anything that Nikon makes for its smaller-sensored cameras. The 20mm f/1.7 lens is small, optically excellent, and less than $400 (when it's not sold out and being used to gouge customers by shit-head camera shops).

And while Sony's APS-C lenses are either ultra-expensive or just as slow as Nikon's (with a pretty standard max-aperture of f/3.5), their translucent mirror technology slaps a turbocharger into their cameras. Sony's SLT cameras offer so much speed that you would never miss a shot. Just point and press. That speed advantage is the reason why I would still opt for the Sony A57, especially if the primary mission is just that of a family camera. But if you are an aspiring landscape photographer on a budget, I can't think of a cheaper and more appropriate entrance into the 20MP club.

DxO Mark Lays The Smack Down On The 5D Mark III

Blah

DxO Mark has published an extensive work-up of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III and the Nikon D800. Essentially, they say the the 5D Mark III is more expensive than both the Mark II and the D800, and that it offers little to no benefit over either.

I'm glad to see such a dry, well-known website lay some smack down on what was a stunning show of corporate arrogance. Three years after the 5D Mark II inadvertently revolutionized filmmaking, Canon delivers a warmed-over "upgrade" or $1,000 more.

The points addressed in the review are as we have seen discussed in the dozens of reviews that have trickled out: too expensive, no real upgrade over the Mark II, is completely beaten by the sensor in not just the D800, but also the D3s, D3x, D4, Pentax K5, and matched by the Sony NEX 7 (those last two are APS-C and obviously are inferior as regards ISO).

I'm ranting about this because I hate seeing corporate arrogance prevent development and progress. I hate it when a company so visibly rests on its laurels and, in the case of Canon, tries to milk more money from its market through product trickery.

Now Canon is screwed. The Blackmagic Cinema camera blows Canon's new C-Series (I consider the C to stand for "crap") out of the water and Nikon's still cameras are now significantly superior. If I didn't already own so much Canon crap, I wouldn't care about this. But as it stands, I've got a few grand invested in the system of a company that is arrogant and intransigent. I'm glad that Nikon and Sony are interested in trying new things, and Fuji has truly captured my attention.

Sorry Canon, the market is moving on without you.