It's been one year since I bought the Nikon D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. It has been a very rough journey learning to get the best of it, even though I've used a number of SLRs and dSLRs and other cameras over the last 40 years.
Back in 2004, I made the jump to a digital SLR, looking at Nikon, Canon, and Pentax ahead of buying an Olympus E-1. I weighed a great many factors and chose an all-digital system without a legacy. The images that came from it are still quite wonderful and the body worked nearly like an extension of my arms. I've yet to find another camera body that feels so right.
By 2007, the Nikon D300 arrived and I was re-thinking a lot of things. I was fairly invested at this point and declined to jump to Nikon. When Olympus brought forth the E-3, I was unhappy that it was two years late and two years behind the rest of the market. In late 2011, I bought the Olympus E-5. By then, the D300 was older and the E-5 used my equipment quite well, with a fairly modern sensor. Had there been a D400 at the time, I probably would have jumped ship.
Not quite four years later, I bought the D7200, still waiting on a true D300 replacement, with the well-regarded Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens.
I have struggled with the camera body and still struggle with it now. The last Nikon I used to any larger extent was the F2 film body. When I recently talked to a Nikon representative, he hinted at the inconsistent nature of the company's interface since they started with dSLRs.
The rear of the body is an ergonomic mess. The left-side column of five buttons is difficult to use without looking carefully at the buttons. The button at the bottom, a stylized "i" seems to be for information, but across the rear display is a button marked "info". Is this confusing?
Sadly, the menus are even more confusing. They're possibly as bad as the Olympus menus, but at least, Olympus has the interactive Super Control Panel. Nikon gives me the Informational Panel that is not interactive. Auto Focus was extremely interesting, due to its reliance on both menu selections and the AF controls to the bottom left of the lens mount.
Thankfully, major functions in the form of four buttons replaced the mode dial on the left shoulder: Quality, Metering, White Balance, and Mode. The first three are better there than as some sub-functions on those 5 left-hand buttons on the rear of the body. They can easily be found by position on the D500.
When I first gave up the mode dial with the E-5, I thought that it was the stupidest thing I'd ever seen. The E-5 relies greatly on the top display, as do the D300 and D500. Years later, the top display works just fine, thankfully. Even the top display of the E-1 is still working well.
Well, in a twist, due to my heart defect, I've given away all of the Nikon-related equipment. Someone else with only Nikon equipment will make the best of the D7200, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6, and Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 lenses.
Showing posts with label D7200. Show all posts
Showing posts with label D7200. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Nikon D7200 vs Panasonic GX8 vs Olympus E-M1 vs GH4
I consider the market for cameras between US$1000.00 and US$1999.99 to be the most active for active photographers. Sure, there are people who take photos with equipment under US$1000.00 but many of them have one lens--the kit lens. From my experience, they may take good photos but they don't really work their equipment. I push my equipment past those limits, such as when I was out photographing in three hurricanes, or when I'm photographing at skate parks.
For many people US$1199.99 is a premium price point. To me, it's roughly the minimum for a weather-sealed camera body. True, you can get the Pentax K-50 still, and it is an excellent bargain at around US$400. Even with the kit lens, it's a capable camera. For me, the lenses I wanted weren't available for Pentax, and an adapter to use such lenses on micro Four-Thirds bodies wasn't all that capable. I switched to the Nikon D7200, especially because it has two high ISO (51,200 and 102,400) sensitivities that work in a black & white mode.
Yes, my equipment must work in a variety of ways, especially when I'm photographing sports.
Since I bought my Olympus E-1 in 2004, I've had Four-Thirds equipment and now, those lenses can be used on my micro Four-Thirds bodies, the Olympus E-M1, Panasonic GH4, and now, Panasonic GX8.
That gives me four modern camera bodies:
For reasons explained in the sections to follow, I rate them in the following order:
Sure, you can get any of them to do general photography well, but when pushing the limits, this is how they work out for me:
For still photography, they're not as different as I had thought or had hoped.
By sheer physics and pixel density, the D7200 should be comfortably better with a larger sensor. (I've been told for years that I couldn't work without a larger sensor.) At this point, it isn't working out that way. I suspect that Nikon needs to fix things with firmware. e.g., photographing indoors at Woodward West (training camp and skate park), I found that the Panasonic GH4 was setting itself at ISO 200 and 400, while the D7200 was setting itself at ISO 14,400. Image quality was degraded. However, this is a very, very new body. (Strangely, since using the Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye lens on the D7200, it seems to work better with all lenses. Also, the firmware update didn't change much for me. ISO 4000 is pretty much my usable limit in contrast to ISO 3200 for micro Four-Thirds with the GH4, E-M1, or GX8.)
In daylight, things are more equal. The E-M1's face detection is amazing and for portrait work, I'm finding it and the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 amazing, even up against the D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 combination. (Yes, I know that the Sigma and in general, larger lenses have the possibility to be better, but it isn't always so in real life. I could get better results with the Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 though.) In Live View, I believe that the D7200 can use face detection but Live View degrades performance greatly, and since the optical viewfinder is useless in this mode, you sort of have to use the D7200 as a heavy compact camera. I would suggest a monopod or tripod. This is the case with almost all dSLRs (the Olympus E-330 is the exception) but never the case with mirror-less bodies since they're always using Live View.
The GH4 could be great but I have trouble with the auto focus and face detection being slow and/or inaccurate. I occasionally find when photographing people participating in sports that the focus is a bit off. The GH4, like the GH3, will focus on a wall or fence behind a person, even though only a single focus point is selected, and focus has been locked supposedly with single point focus mode. With face detection, it tends to work better, if I have time to wait. The E-M1's face detection is much faster than that of the GH4. Face detection on the GH4 and GX8 default to splatter mode using all AF points, if it doesn't lock onto a face.
The GX8 has similar auto focus behavior, quite naturally, although it seems somewhat improved and bit quicker. I haven't noticed any degradation with the increased pixel density, nor is it noticeably better in any way, compared to the GH4 or E-M1. I'm sure that you can measure the differences in a laboratory, but I don't photograph in a laboratory.
For Auto Focus consistency:
The D7200 is a huge improvement over the D7100 in terms of the image buffer depth. At 6 frames per second, the D7200 does fairly well. Unfortunately, it's not enough for skate park shooting. Also, a lot depends on the lenses, more than on micro Four-Thirds bodies, it seems. I've been reminded that big glass takes time, but I had no problem working with the slower Olympus E-5 and SHG lenses with 77mm filter size.
Keeping up is only slightly easier with the GX8 and its 8 frames per second. It is more responsive than the GH4 in some ways but overall, it is not quite as able to do the job.
The E-M1 is extremely responsive, and seems to anticipate my needs. Equally, the GH4 single AF is predictive and looking ahead before I half-press the shutter release.
For overall stills shooting:
For casual photographers who want to go out and just photograph street scenes, the E-M1 and GX8 would be great. The GX8 and Leica/Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 lens are great together. The in-body image stabilization of the GX8 should make it somewhat more effective than most Panasonic bodies, although I haven't seen much evidence of it yet. I have also used the 15mm f/1.7 lens on the E-M1 and find it to be very useful. I'm sure there are people who would prefer the less expensive Olympus 17mm f/1.8 but I believe the 15mm's image quality is excellent and it works well when I'm shooting video.
I've heard a lot of people complain that an articulated rear display, such as what the GX8 and GH4 have, is not very useful, probably because it draws too much attention. (I question what people are doing that they need to remain hidden.) The sliding display of the E-M1 is preferred by these people, apparently. This is where the GX8's tilting EVF shows its advantage. It's so easy to use and you don't have to have you eye placed so close to actually use it. I don't use it so much but it can be extremely useful in brightly-lit conditions where the articulated or a sliding display would be engulfed in sunlight.
Obviously, the D7200 is too big to be inconspicuous but also the GH4 even though it isn't terribly big. People are calling the GX8 huge, so possibly the world is full of small, male hands.
When video comes into play, the Panasonic bodies overwhelm the others.
While the D7200 is better than the D7100 is, it's still not as good as the Panasonic GH3 for video, let alone the GH4 or GX8. The lens mount may count for more than the sensor size here. There are a lot of lenses for Nikon, even if it you have to choose very carefully. The lack of an articulated rear display really hampers use of the D7200 but it has more options than the E-M1. If you're trying to get product shots with the D7200 on a tripod, you're set. I think you'd do better with the D5500, and save money to use toward a macro lens. At skate parks on a handle, either Nikon body would do fine but the D5500 has an articulated rear display but is limited to 1/4000th of a second shutter speed.
The E-M1 has been sufficient to record video but is not very good, nor very versatile. It might as well be a point-and-shoot camera for video, even though the quality is sufficient. Firmware version 4.0 has added some options making it less unsuitable for video, including image stabilization help. The sliding rear display is not particularly helpful for video. It might as well be a fixed display.
Perhaps obviously, with 4K video, the GX8 and the GH4 are good at video. Panasonic seems to have given the video capabilities more work than those for still photography. I appreciate that I can use 1080p clips from both and they match very well. I have yet to make real use of 4K video. 4K TVs have yet to make real use of 4K video--except for the demos they display in stores. I've had my latest 1080p skate park video displayed on 4K TVs at an electronics store and it looked good. Sony's upscaling worked the smoothest, over Samsung and LG. When I've taken 4K video for testing, it tends to overwhelm the TV's processors.
The Panasonic video options are amazing, and cater to the video professional/film maker. After months with the D7200, I have not even tried Live View mode, so I have not tried video. It has some updates to help it do video better than the D7100 did. Since I can't look through the viewfinder to see the video being recorded and I can't tilt the rear display, the D7200 is useless to me for video. The D5500 would be more useful for video than the D7200, as the display is articulated. However, these are typical problems with using dSLRs for video, instead of mirrorless models.
I would hope that mirror-less models would have more battery capacity than dSLRs but that hasn't been the case for me. The D7200 has a 1900 mAh battery and the GH4, a 1860 mAh battery. The GX8 and E-M1 each have batteries around 1200 mAh. Needless to say, I have 3 batteries each for the GX8 and E-M1, with 2 each for the D7200 and GH4.
For stills, I've shot several hours on the GH4 with one battery, but it doesn't last quite so long with video. I'm sure that the D7200 should last the longest for stills. Using the Olympus E-1 during wrestling tournaments, 4 1500 mAh batteries would handle a 14 hour day. The E-5 uses similar batteries and I've never had a serious problem with battery life.
The E-M1 seems to want to turn on the rear display for almost anything, which is possibly the reason that the battery can be depleted so quickly. The 5 axis image stabilization probably contributes quite a bit as well, as the loss in converting electrical energy to motion is higher than it should be. The GX8 hasn't shown me that it is great on battery life, even though the rear display can be hidden.
I love an optical viewfinder. I never thought I'd be able to use some electronic thingee instead. When I got the Panasonic GH3, I didn't feel much different about EVFs. The EVF in the GH3 isn't awful, but the EVF in concert with the eye cup didn't work well for me. Then, I traded it for the E-M1.
The Olympus E-M1, FujiFilm X-T1, and Panasonic GH4 can all claim the greatest EVF title. They're big, bright, and useful. The X-T1's EVF rearranges the information in portrait mode, which could be helpful. I like the X-T1 a lot, but it isn't right for me, shooting sports and all. The GX8 has apparently been given the GH4 viewfinder, which is a big step up from the GX7 and the rainbow tearing effect.
For me, the E-M1, GH4, and GX8 have viewfinders that make daytime use great and nighttime use better than an optical viewfinder can provide. It's also good to have a preview of the photo where you don't have to guess much as to the result.
Even when auto focus doesn't lock to a target, you can see fairly well. Naturally, refresh time is degraded at night but it works well enough. Version 4.0 of the E-M1 firmware has a simulated optical viewfinder mode. I haven't really tested this new mode but I suspect it speeds up processing by not having to represent a realistic preview.
I suppose being able to get the most out of an optical viewfinder is using your experience to extrapolate from what you see to the final photo. Using the Olympus E-1 and E-5, I was able to get what I wanted from the photo with only an optical viewfinder. The D7200's viewfinder is very good and if you really need more, you can switch to Live View using the fixed rear display. However, you have to be patient with Live View. Even with the E-5, patience was required and Olympus, along with Panasonic made Live View a big deal. The E-330 worked better because it had two sensors to keep Live View quick.
As I've mentioned, the GX8 and GH4 have articulated displays, which are very useful in architectural shooting and even when you need to check the image when the camera is on the tripod, as the display can be folded out and completely reversed. The E-M1's rear display slides down and slides up, making it possible to shoot from low angles or over crowds.
GX8
GH4
E-M1
D7200
Here is another point where the old ways don't really work. For a few years, Olympus has been using an interactive settings display called Super Control Panel. On the E-5 (from 2010), it was an easy way to switch ISO sensitivity, White Balance, Auto Focus, Burst Mode, even the card slot.
The D7200 has an informational display on the rear display. You can see but you cannot touch--there is no interaction. For someone unaccustomed to the menu system, forget about making quick adjustments without a well-traveled mentor at your side.
The Super Control Panel on the E-M1 is very useful. The Quick Menu on the Panasonic bodies is useful but takes some acclimation with the up/down motion to select items to be changed.
I know that people complain about Olympus' (so many little gear selections!) menus, and they have become much more complex since the E-1 but every company seems to have complex and/or confusing menus. I can say, as a new digital Nikon user, that I have been confused by the menus, even with help from searching the manual. Had Nikon implemented an interactive settings display, it would have helped greatly to expedite changes. Looking at the now available D500, things should be sped up by replacing the mode dial with ISO and other buttons, so you don't have to negotiate the multiple, near identical buttons to the left of the rear display.
Having used Olympus products since the days of film, it's difficult to believe that I reach for a Panasonic product first.
In my opinion, the GH4 is a better successor to the Olympus E-5 than the E-M1 is. The controls work the way I expect, for the most part from the start. Of course, things were set with the GH3. The GH4 makes a big difference by omitting a top panel display but having a mode dial, a drive dial, and various buttons for settings such as exposure compensation. This is all rather convenient and works quickly in practice. Something else that makes the GH4 (and GX8) quick are three physical spots on the command dial for custom settings and the C3 spot includes a total of three settings. The only problem is that I forget about the drive dial to the left of the EVF. If they had combined the mode and drive dials in a stack, it would have been useful.
The E-M1 has a mode dial but there are no positions for custom settings. There are buttons for HDR, drive mode, auto focus, and exposure mode on the top plate. There is also a button for the exposure curve and another for video recording. Unfortunately, the E-M1 is never quite that intuitive. The first time I tried one, I spent a lot of time trying to change exposure compensation back to zero. The front dial is set to exposure compensation by default, which is totally different than the E-5--not a good thing to do with the replacement.
The GX8 seems sparse on the top panel. It has a mode dial like that of the GH4 with an extra position for panoramic photos. There is an extra dial below the command dial for exposure compensation, probably to appeal to FujiFilm users who find the X-T1 so interesting. The lack of the GH4's rear wheel makes the replacement more point-and-shoot camera like that I would have expected. The four buttons have separate functions, which is useful.
The D7200 has a mode dial to the left of the viewfinder, along with a drive dial below the command dial. The command dial has two positions for custom settings. Strangely, like the other three, there is a full automatic position on the command dial, along with Scene and Effects. Do the users labeled Enthusiasts use these sorts of modes? There are also buttons for exposure compensation, exposure mode, and video recording on the top panel, but they are out of the way of the top display. The auto focus controls are at the bottom of the lens mount collar.
Thankfully, the custom settings positions on the command dial helps switch a lot of settings quickly. While the E-M1 has no such positions on the command dial, they have a two way switch on the back that allows the buttons to take on different meanings.
While the E-M1 is easiest to make a lot of changes quickly through the Super Control Panel, if I want to change to manual focus with an Olympus lens, I reach for a physical switch that isn't there. Someone will question this, as many Olympus lenses have the push-pull clutch AF/MF mechanism, but with the 8mm fisheye lens, there is no such physical switch.
The GH4 is the body closest to perfection. It isn't horribly small and there are plenty of physical buttons and switches. I get a lot done and it works well with longer lenses, even those not intended for the micro Four-Thirds system. I've found that I can even work the video recording button while wearing gloves.
The GX8 isn't quite as intuitive, but it shares a lot of great traits with the GH4. Unfortunately, the video recording button is tiny and difficult, even without gloves. The most serious problem with using the GX8 is the location of the SD Card slot, next to the battery. It isn't made for my fingers. however, the GX8 can take a 128 GB card, rather than the 64 GB card that the GH4 can handle.
I like the D7200 a lot. It's big enough to balance some very big lenses. The top panel LCD makes checking settings very easy. The dual SD Card slots mean that I can keep shooting, rather than scrambling for another card in my bag, although the larger files tend to balance that a bit. I suspect if I was still photographing high school sports for 14 hours in a day, I would be pleased to use the D7200, especially since the battery has so much capacity. The D7200 is a wonderful workhorse. If you have everything set and don't need to make changes often, it is a desirable body. It is not easy to change settings, but it is made for a lot of work when you're ready
GH4
E-M1
GX8
D7200
If these bodies didn't work for me, I wouldn't have any of them. Switching between them during a shoot can be interesting.
The D7200 is a great tool for landscape work (compared to micro Four-Thirds) with 14-bit raw files for extra dynamic range and a larger sensor for wider work. While the body is somewhat big and weather-sealed, the construction does not feel as strong as the others. I've bought an Easy Cover silicone case to protect the body from bumps, since it doesn't seem as strong as the others. The body doesn't seem to work as well as the others when there isn't much light.
The GX8 is a great second video body. It is big enough to be comfortable but could use better battery capacity. The promise of Dual Image Stabilization will eventually make it formidable. Having 4K video puts it ahead of other bodies around its price. Being able to easily mix video with video from the GH4 makes it extremely useful. The lack of numbers on the function buttons makes setup interesting.
The E-M1 is a very good stills body. Face detection makes it quick for portraits and sports. The 5-axis image stabilization makes any lens better at twilight. If Olympus implements Dual Image Stabilization, it will be even more powerful. Battery life is a serious problem and the camera's grip isn't comfortable to me. While it is a stop gap compromise to replace the E-5, to me, it's more compromise than replacement. If you ignore its ability to work with Four-Thirds lenses, it becomes a much better solution, though I'm still not sure about micro Four-Thirds lenses.
The GH4 is slightly small compared to dSLRs, but still comfortable. I almost don't have to think to use it. It's rare that I have to stop to make changes. I can switch between stills and video quickly, especially with 4K photo mode. As with the GX8, the video versatility is a lesson to other brands. Of course, the GH4 exceeds the GX8 by quite a bit in versatility, covering many bit rates.
Alternatives are available, such as the FujiFilm X-T1 and Pentax K-3 Mk II. For me, the X-T1 is too slow to respond for skate park sports. I considered the K-3 Mk II but while I had the K-50, I couldn't get the lenses I wanted. Pentax is working on that.
Update 2016.07.21: I gave away the Nikon D7200 and associated equipment, including four lenses. It was good equipment but it wasn't for me, even though I used to love using a dSLR.
Right now, if I wanted to replace it with a similar sensor, I'd order the FujiFilm X-T2 and a lens or two. For the sake of reality, I didn't see enough difference from 24MP and APS-C to make me think that it would be necessary. Where I limit my micro Four-Thirds photos to ISO 3200, I limited my D7200 photos to ISO 4000. You might make it to ISO 6400 with the Nikon D500, but I would be skeptical.
The Pentax K-1 might be a useful alternative, but finding lenses that take advantage of the body at this moment is a difficult process. The K-mount has been around since the late 1970s, when I was selling equipment, but the lenses didn't really distinguish themselves back then. The standouts were Nikon and Olympus, at least, using 135 Format film. FujiFilm, as Fujica, had a good showing with screw-mount lenses but switched to the K-mount with the AZ-1.
I'd still like to see a Panasonic body with Olympus' AF, including Face Detection. I still find the GH4 to be an amazing camera body with so much value in a small package.
For many people US$1199.99 is a premium price point. To me, it's roughly the minimum for a weather-sealed camera body. True, you can get the Pentax K-50 still, and it is an excellent bargain at around US$400. Even with the kit lens, it's a capable camera. For me, the lenses I wanted weren't available for Pentax, and an adapter to use such lenses on micro Four-Thirds bodies wasn't all that capable. I switched to the Nikon D7200, especially because it has two high ISO (51,200 and 102,400) sensitivities that work in a black & white mode.
Yes, my equipment must work in a variety of ways, especially when I'm photographing sports.
Since I bought my Olympus E-1 in 2004, I've had Four-Thirds equipment and now, those lenses can be used on my micro Four-Thirds bodies, the Olympus E-M1, Panasonic GH4, and now, Panasonic GX8.
That gives me four modern camera bodies:
- Olympus E-M1
- Panasonic GH4
- Nikon D7200
- Panasonic GX8
For reasons explained in the sections to follow, I rate them in the following order:
- Panasonic GH4
- Olympus E-M1
- Panasonic GX8
- Nikon D7200
Sure, you can get any of them to do general photography well, but when pushing the limits, this is how they work out for me:
Stills
For still photography, they're not as different as I had thought or had hoped.
By sheer physics and pixel density, the D7200 should be comfortably better with a larger sensor. (I've been told for years that I couldn't work without a larger sensor.) At this point, it isn't working out that way. I suspect that Nikon needs to fix things with firmware. e.g., photographing indoors at Woodward West (training camp and skate park), I found that the Panasonic GH4 was setting itself at ISO 200 and 400, while the D7200 was setting itself at ISO 14,400. Image quality was degraded. However, this is a very, very new body. (Strangely, since using the Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye lens on the D7200, it seems to work better with all lenses. Also, the firmware update didn't change much for me. ISO 4000 is pretty much my usable limit in contrast to ISO 3200 for micro Four-Thirds with the GH4, E-M1, or GX8.)
In daylight, things are more equal. The E-M1's face detection is amazing and for portrait work, I'm finding it and the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 amazing, even up against the D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 combination. (Yes, I know that the Sigma and in general, larger lenses have the possibility to be better, but it isn't always so in real life. I could get better results with the Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 though.) In Live View, I believe that the D7200 can use face detection but Live View degrades performance greatly, and since the optical viewfinder is useless in this mode, you sort of have to use the D7200 as a heavy compact camera. I would suggest a monopod or tripod. This is the case with almost all dSLRs (the Olympus E-330 is the exception) but never the case with mirror-less bodies since they're always using Live View.
The GH4 could be great but I have trouble with the auto focus and face detection being slow and/or inaccurate. I occasionally find when photographing people participating in sports that the focus is a bit off. The GH4, like the GH3, will focus on a wall or fence behind a person, even though only a single focus point is selected, and focus has been locked supposedly with single point focus mode. With face detection, it tends to work better, if I have time to wait. The E-M1's face detection is much faster than that of the GH4. Face detection on the GH4 and GX8 default to splatter mode using all AF points, if it doesn't lock onto a face.
The GX8 has similar auto focus behavior, quite naturally, although it seems somewhat improved and bit quicker. I haven't noticed any degradation with the increased pixel density, nor is it noticeably better in any way, compared to the GH4 or E-M1. I'm sure that you can measure the differences in a laboratory, but I don't photograph in a laboratory.
For Auto Focus consistency:
- E-M1
- D7200
- GX8
- GH4
The D7200 is a huge improvement over the D7100 in terms of the image buffer depth. At 6 frames per second, the D7200 does fairly well. Unfortunately, it's not enough for skate park shooting. Also, a lot depends on the lenses, more than on micro Four-Thirds bodies, it seems. I've been reminded that big glass takes time, but I had no problem working with the slower Olympus E-5 and SHG lenses with 77mm filter size.
Keeping up is only slightly easier with the GX8 and its 8 frames per second. It is more responsive than the GH4 in some ways but overall, it is not quite as able to do the job.
The E-M1 is extremely responsive, and seems to anticipate my needs. Equally, the GH4 single AF is predictive and looking ahead before I half-press the shutter release.
For overall stills shooting:
- E-M1
- GH4
- GX8
- D7200
Street shooting
For casual photographers who want to go out and just photograph street scenes, the E-M1 and GX8 would be great. The GX8 and Leica/Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 lens are great together. The in-body image stabilization of the GX8 should make it somewhat more effective than most Panasonic bodies, although I haven't seen much evidence of it yet. I have also used the 15mm f/1.7 lens on the E-M1 and find it to be very useful. I'm sure there are people who would prefer the less expensive Olympus 17mm f/1.8 but I believe the 15mm's image quality is excellent and it works well when I'm shooting video.
I've heard a lot of people complain that an articulated rear display, such as what the GX8 and GH4 have, is not very useful, probably because it draws too much attention. (I question what people are doing that they need to remain hidden.) The sliding display of the E-M1 is preferred by these people, apparently. This is where the GX8's tilting EVF shows its advantage. It's so easy to use and you don't have to have you eye placed so close to actually use it. I don't use it so much but it can be extremely useful in brightly-lit conditions where the articulated or a sliding display would be engulfed in sunlight.
Obviously, the D7200 is too big to be inconspicuous but also the GH4 even though it isn't terribly big. People are calling the GX8 huge, so possibly the world is full of small, male hands.
- E-M1
- GX8
- GH4
- D7200
Video
When video comes into play, the Panasonic bodies overwhelm the others.
While the D7200 is better than the D7100 is, it's still not as good as the Panasonic GH3 for video, let alone the GH4 or GX8. The lens mount may count for more than the sensor size here. There are a lot of lenses for Nikon, even if it you have to choose very carefully. The lack of an articulated rear display really hampers use of the D7200 but it has more options than the E-M1. If you're trying to get product shots with the D7200 on a tripod, you're set. I think you'd do better with the D5500, and save money to use toward a macro lens. At skate parks on a handle, either Nikon body would do fine but the D5500 has an articulated rear display but is limited to 1/4000th of a second shutter speed.
The E-M1 has been sufficient to record video but is not very good, nor very versatile. It might as well be a point-and-shoot camera for video, even though the quality is sufficient. Firmware version 4.0 has added some options making it less unsuitable for video, including image stabilization help. The sliding rear display is not particularly helpful for video. It might as well be a fixed display.
Perhaps obviously, with 4K video, the GX8 and the GH4 are good at video. Panasonic seems to have given the video capabilities more work than those for still photography. I appreciate that I can use 1080p clips from both and they match very well. I have yet to make real use of 4K video. 4K TVs have yet to make real use of 4K video--except for the demos they display in stores. I've had my latest 1080p skate park video displayed on 4K TVs at an electronics store and it looked good. Sony's upscaling worked the smoothest, over Samsung and LG. When I've taken 4K video for testing, it tends to overwhelm the TV's processors.
The Panasonic video options are amazing, and cater to the video professional/film maker. After months with the D7200, I have not even tried Live View mode, so I have not tried video. It has some updates to help it do video better than the D7100 did. Since I can't look through the viewfinder to see the video being recorded and I can't tilt the rear display, the D7200 is useless to me for video. The D5500 would be more useful for video than the D7200, as the display is articulated. However, these are typical problems with using dSLRs for video, instead of mirrorless models.
- GH4
- GX8
- E-M1
- D7200
Battery Life
I would hope that mirror-less models would have more battery capacity than dSLRs but that hasn't been the case for me. The D7200 has a 1900 mAh battery and the GH4, a 1860 mAh battery. The GX8 and E-M1 each have batteries around 1200 mAh. Needless to say, I have 3 batteries each for the GX8 and E-M1, with 2 each for the D7200 and GH4.
For stills, I've shot several hours on the GH4 with one battery, but it doesn't last quite so long with video. I'm sure that the D7200 should last the longest for stills. Using the Olympus E-1 during wrestling tournaments, 4 1500 mAh batteries would handle a 14 hour day. The E-5 uses similar batteries and I've never had a serious problem with battery life.
The E-M1 seems to want to turn on the rear display for almost anything, which is possibly the reason that the battery can be depleted so quickly. The 5 axis image stabilization probably contributes quite a bit as well, as the loss in converting electrical energy to motion is higher than it should be. The GX8 hasn't shown me that it is great on battery life, even though the rear display can be hidden.
- D7200
- GH4
- GX8
- E-M1
Viewfinder/Rear Display
I love an optical viewfinder. I never thought I'd be able to use some electronic thingee instead. When I got the Panasonic GH3, I didn't feel much different about EVFs. The EVF in the GH3 isn't awful, but the EVF in concert with the eye cup didn't work well for me. Then, I traded it for the E-M1.
The Olympus E-M1, FujiFilm X-T1, and Panasonic GH4 can all claim the greatest EVF title. They're big, bright, and useful. The X-T1's EVF rearranges the information in portrait mode, which could be helpful. I like the X-T1 a lot, but it isn't right for me, shooting sports and all. The GX8 has apparently been given the GH4 viewfinder, which is a big step up from the GX7 and the rainbow tearing effect.
For me, the E-M1, GH4, and GX8 have viewfinders that make daytime use great and nighttime use better than an optical viewfinder can provide. It's also good to have a preview of the photo where you don't have to guess much as to the result.
Even when auto focus doesn't lock to a target, you can see fairly well. Naturally, refresh time is degraded at night but it works well enough. Version 4.0 of the E-M1 firmware has a simulated optical viewfinder mode. I haven't really tested this new mode but I suspect it speeds up processing by not having to represent a realistic preview.
I suppose being able to get the most out of an optical viewfinder is using your experience to extrapolate from what you see to the final photo. Using the Olympus E-1 and E-5, I was able to get what I wanted from the photo with only an optical viewfinder. The D7200's viewfinder is very good and if you really need more, you can switch to Live View using the fixed rear display. However, you have to be patient with Live View. Even with the E-5, patience was required and Olympus, along with Panasonic made Live View a big deal. The E-330 worked better because it had two sensors to keep Live View quick.
As I've mentioned, the GX8 and GH4 have articulated displays, which are very useful in architectural shooting and even when you need to check the image when the camera is on the tripod, as the display can be folded out and completely reversed. The E-M1's rear display slides down and slides up, making it possible to shoot from low angles or over crowds.
GX8
GH4
E-M1
D7200
Settings
Here is another point where the old ways don't really work. For a few years, Olympus has been using an interactive settings display called Super Control Panel. On the E-5 (from 2010), it was an easy way to switch ISO sensitivity, White Balance, Auto Focus, Burst Mode, even the card slot.
The D7200 has an informational display on the rear display. You can see but you cannot touch--there is no interaction. For someone unaccustomed to the menu system, forget about making quick adjustments without a well-traveled mentor at your side.
The Super Control Panel on the E-M1 is very useful. The Quick Menu on the Panasonic bodies is useful but takes some acclimation with the up/down motion to select items to be changed.
I know that people complain about Olympus' (so many little gear selections!) menus, and they have become much more complex since the E-1 but every company seems to have complex and/or confusing menus. I can say, as a new digital Nikon user, that I have been confused by the menus, even with help from searching the manual. Had Nikon implemented an interactive settings display, it would have helped greatly to expedite changes. Looking at the now available D500, things should be sped up by replacing the mode dial with ISO and other buttons, so you don't have to negotiate the multiple, near identical buttons to the left of the rear display.
- E-M1
- GH4
- GX8
- D7200
Ease of use
Having used Olympus products since the days of film, it's difficult to believe that I reach for a Panasonic product first.
In my opinion, the GH4 is a better successor to the Olympus E-5 than the E-M1 is. The controls work the way I expect, for the most part from the start. Of course, things were set with the GH3. The GH4 makes a big difference by omitting a top panel display but having a mode dial, a drive dial, and various buttons for settings such as exposure compensation. This is all rather convenient and works quickly in practice. Something else that makes the GH4 (and GX8) quick are three physical spots on the command dial for custom settings and the C3 spot includes a total of three settings. The only problem is that I forget about the drive dial to the left of the EVF. If they had combined the mode and drive dials in a stack, it would have been useful.
The E-M1 has a mode dial but there are no positions for custom settings. There are buttons for HDR, drive mode, auto focus, and exposure mode on the top plate. There is also a button for the exposure curve and another for video recording. Unfortunately, the E-M1 is never quite that intuitive. The first time I tried one, I spent a lot of time trying to change exposure compensation back to zero. The front dial is set to exposure compensation by default, which is totally different than the E-5--not a good thing to do with the replacement.
The GX8 seems sparse on the top panel. It has a mode dial like that of the GH4 with an extra position for panoramic photos. There is an extra dial below the command dial for exposure compensation, probably to appeal to FujiFilm users who find the X-T1 so interesting. The lack of the GH4's rear wheel makes the replacement more point-and-shoot camera like that I would have expected. The four buttons have separate functions, which is useful.
The D7200 has a mode dial to the left of the viewfinder, along with a drive dial below the command dial. The command dial has two positions for custom settings. Strangely, like the other three, there is a full automatic position on the command dial, along with Scene and Effects. Do the users labeled Enthusiasts use these sorts of modes? There are also buttons for exposure compensation, exposure mode, and video recording on the top panel, but they are out of the way of the top display. The auto focus controls are at the bottom of the lens mount collar.
Thankfully, the custom settings positions on the command dial helps switch a lot of settings quickly. While the E-M1 has no such positions on the command dial, they have a two way switch on the back that allows the buttons to take on different meanings.
While the E-M1 is easiest to make a lot of changes quickly through the Super Control Panel, if I want to change to manual focus with an Olympus lens, I reach for a physical switch that isn't there. Someone will question this, as many Olympus lenses have the push-pull clutch AF/MF mechanism, but with the 8mm fisheye lens, there is no such physical switch.
The GH4 is the body closest to perfection. It isn't horribly small and there are plenty of physical buttons and switches. I get a lot done and it works well with longer lenses, even those not intended for the micro Four-Thirds system. I've found that I can even work the video recording button while wearing gloves.
The GX8 isn't quite as intuitive, but it shares a lot of great traits with the GH4. Unfortunately, the video recording button is tiny and difficult, even without gloves. The most serious problem with using the GX8 is the location of the SD Card slot, next to the battery. It isn't made for my fingers. however, the GX8 can take a 128 GB card, rather than the 64 GB card that the GH4 can handle.
I like the D7200 a lot. It's big enough to balance some very big lenses. The top panel LCD makes checking settings very easy. The dual SD Card slots mean that I can keep shooting, rather than scrambling for another card in my bag, although the larger files tend to balance that a bit. I suspect if I was still photographing high school sports for 14 hours in a day, I would be pleased to use the D7200, especially since the battery has so much capacity. The D7200 is a wonderful workhorse. If you have everything set and don't need to make changes often, it is a desirable body. It is not easy to change settings, but it is made for a lot of work when you're ready
GH4
E-M1
GX8
D7200
Conclusion
If these bodies didn't work for me, I wouldn't have any of them. Switching between them during a shoot can be interesting.
The D7200 is a great tool for landscape work (compared to micro Four-Thirds) with 14-bit raw files for extra dynamic range and a larger sensor for wider work. While the body is somewhat big and weather-sealed, the construction does not feel as strong as the others. I've bought an Easy Cover silicone case to protect the body from bumps, since it doesn't seem as strong as the others. The body doesn't seem to work as well as the others when there isn't much light.
The GX8 is a great second video body. It is big enough to be comfortable but could use better battery capacity. The promise of Dual Image Stabilization will eventually make it formidable. Having 4K video puts it ahead of other bodies around its price. Being able to easily mix video with video from the GH4 makes it extremely useful. The lack of numbers on the function buttons makes setup interesting.
The E-M1 is a very good stills body. Face detection makes it quick for portraits and sports. The 5-axis image stabilization makes any lens better at twilight. If Olympus implements Dual Image Stabilization, it will be even more powerful. Battery life is a serious problem and the camera's grip isn't comfortable to me. While it is a stop gap compromise to replace the E-5, to me, it's more compromise than replacement. If you ignore its ability to work with Four-Thirds lenses, it becomes a much better solution, though I'm still not sure about micro Four-Thirds lenses.
The GH4 is slightly small compared to dSLRs, but still comfortable. I almost don't have to think to use it. It's rare that I have to stop to make changes. I can switch between stills and video quickly, especially with 4K photo mode. As with the GX8, the video versatility is a lesson to other brands. Of course, the GH4 exceeds the GX8 by quite a bit in versatility, covering many bit rates.
Alternatives are available, such as the FujiFilm X-T1 and Pentax K-3 Mk II. For me, the X-T1 is too slow to respond for skate park sports. I considered the K-3 Mk II but while I had the K-50, I couldn't get the lenses I wanted. Pentax is working on that.
Update 2016.07.21: I gave away the Nikon D7200 and associated equipment, including four lenses. It was good equipment but it wasn't for me, even though I used to love using a dSLR.
Right now, if I wanted to replace it with a similar sensor, I'd order the FujiFilm X-T2 and a lens or two. For the sake of reality, I didn't see enough difference from 24MP and APS-C to make me think that it would be necessary. Where I limit my micro Four-Thirds photos to ISO 3200, I limited my D7200 photos to ISO 4000. You might make it to ISO 6400 with the Nikon D500, but I would be skeptical.
The Pentax K-1 might be a useful alternative, but finding lenses that take advantage of the body at this moment is a difficult process. The K-mount has been around since the late 1970s, when I was selling equipment, but the lenses didn't really distinguish themselves back then. The standouts were Nikon and Olympus, at least, using 135 Format film. FujiFilm, as Fujica, had a good showing with screw-mount lenses but switched to the K-mount with the AZ-1.
I'd still like to see a Panasonic body with Olympus' AF, including Face Detection. I still find the GH4 to be an amazing camera body with so much value in a small package.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Tamron 18-200MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC for Nikon, with samples
I'm not one for superzoom lenses. In fact, I wouldn't normally buy a lens with more than a 4x zoom range. 10x zooms tend to be mushy at both ends with some place decent in the middle of the range.
However, due to the nature of skate parks, I have had some thoughts about the Panasonic 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 Power OIS lens. Rather than spend US$700 on this lens and be disappointed, I decided to buy a discounted (US$200) Tamron 18-200mm lens. This Tamron lens just won the "Best Entry DSLR Lens" TIPA award. (TIPA, like EISA seems to be a group that believes that everyone is a winner, although Tokina didn't win anything.)
Tamron's optical image stabilization has been quite good. Considering the very small maximum aperture (f/3.5-6.3), it definitely needs OIS. The Panasonic lens has their best OIS, which doesn't seem completely effective but might be similar, given the focal range. Considering that the Tamron lens is made for a dSLR, it's surprising that it uses a 62mm filter size while the Panasonic lens uses a 58mm filter size. That makes the Tamron lens quite compact.
These seem very good examples of what the lens can do but these next images seem to show some of the less great attributes.
Purple fringing seems quite noticeable and there are multiple problems with these photos concerning eye-bending distortion. They're not awful, especially when not viewed close up, but they can be irritating when thoroughly examined. It is a lens for convenience.
I consider that this is typically a US$250 lens. That isn't a lot, so no one should expect a lot. Of course, if you were using a bridge camera, it might correct all of these little issues automagically and you'd never see any real problem. Imagine a 60x zoom range. That is difficult to believe with a bigger sensor. The Sigma 50-500mm lens is the biggest 10x zoom lens I've seen and you don't really need a crew to handle it, but a tripod helps.
Considering that I have:
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye
this Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 seems an odd fit. I bought the D7200 for wide angle purposes and it has done well for that, even though it isn't possibly as wide as a 135 Format/FX body would be. It is sufficient. The Tamron lens adds a bit of reach without much expense, so that I can use the D7200 on its own, to handle a variety of tasks.
If you're interested, What Digital Camera put together a review of the lens for Canon. Nothing should surprise you.
However, due to the nature of skate parks, I have had some thoughts about the Panasonic 14-140mm f/3.5-5.6 Power OIS lens. Rather than spend US$700 on this lens and be disappointed, I decided to buy a discounted (US$200) Tamron 18-200mm lens. This Tamron lens just won the "Best Entry DSLR Lens" TIPA award. (TIPA, like EISA seems to be a group that believes that everyone is a winner, although Tokina didn't win anything.)
Tamron's optical image stabilization has been quite good. Considering the very small maximum aperture (f/3.5-6.3), it definitely needs OIS. The Panasonic lens has their best OIS, which doesn't seem completely effective but might be similar, given the focal range. Considering that the Tamron lens is made for a dSLR, it's surprising that it uses a 62mm filter size while the Panasonic lens uses a 58mm filter size. That makes the Tamron lens quite compact.
 |
| 18mm |
 |
| 200mm |
 |
| VC/OIS seemed to work while I was walking |
 |
| Fairly sharp with unusual shapes |
Purple fringing seems quite noticeable and there are multiple problems with these photos concerning eye-bending distortion. They're not awful, especially when not viewed close up, but they can be irritating when thoroughly examined. It is a lens for convenience.
I consider that this is typically a US$250 lens. That isn't a lot, so no one should expect a lot. Of course, if you were using a bridge camera, it might correct all of these little issues automagically and you'd never see any real problem. Imagine a 60x zoom range. That is difficult to believe with a bigger sensor. The Sigma 50-500mm lens is the biggest 10x zoom lens I've seen and you don't really need a crew to handle it, but a tripod helps.
Considering that I have:
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye
this Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 seems an odd fit. I bought the D7200 for wide angle purposes and it has done well for that, even though it isn't possibly as wide as a 135 Format/FX body would be. It is sufficient. The Tamron lens adds a bit of reach without much expense, so that I can use the D7200 on its own, to handle a variety of tasks.
If you're interested, What Digital Camera put together a review of the lens for Canon. Nothing should surprise you.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye lens versus Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens
I'm doing a quick entry here to start. I just received a Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 DX format lens. It's a used lens that was originally owned by LensRentals.com and sold by their liquidation division.
Buying a Nikon D7200 was mostly an experiment in order to get wider angle landscape shots more easily. I've done that with the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lenses. These are not particularly responsive lenses and from the start, they've made the D7200 feel unresponsive, especially for someone who photographs sports 99% of the time. As I've slowed down because of my heart defect, I've been able to do more creative shots. Still, I pick up the Olympus E-M1 and 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens because of the difference in light gathering.
Oh, wait! APS-C versus micro Four-Thirds can't even be close. Well, I'm finding that real life is much different than examining a bunch of numbers and graphs. People who don't shoot much have been telling me how much greater APS-C is. The big difference I see between my GH4, GX8, E-M1 and the Nikon D7200 is that the Nikon body can record raw files with 14-bit depth rather than 12 bits. Automagically, that increased the possibility of better dynamic range, color, and more. Whether there is actually more is the real question. I assume that there is. Nikon has been good about wanting to deliver the best image quality.
In any case, I received the Nikkor lens about an hour ago and had lunch first, to give me some time to think.
To a certain extent, the difference in maximum aperture is offset by the higher ISO usability. So far, I've found a maximum ISO sensitivity of ISO 4000 with the D7200 versus ISO 3200 for micro Four-Thirds. Yes, you can go much higher and get something but for photographing sports, I have to be more careful. Once it's fairly dark, neither is going to be okay without extra lighting. However, auto focus on the D7200 goes down to EV -3 and the GH4 and GX8 goes down to EV -4. I can't find a figure for the E-M1 but it has been decent in very low light, although it thinks a lot at that point.
Taking the Nikkor lens out of the box and wrapping, I was surprised how utterly small it is for a dSLR lens. It's not much bigger than the Olympus micro Four-Thirds fisheye lens. Yes, it's a DX format lens, so it can be smaller. The best thing is that it can be used on the FX format camera bodies in DX mode. (However, without weather-sealing and with a smaller maximum aperture, it isn't a surprise than the Nikkor lens is small. If it had similar attributes, it would be much larger.)
As with all Nikkor lenses, I struggle to figure out which lenses are weather-sealed. At full price of roughly US$775, I would expect that it would be. That doesn't mean that it is, and from the description in the listing, I would say that it is not. They mentioned some dust inside the lens--that did not affect image quality. I've never had such a problem with my Olympus lenses, even though I'd used them out in hurricanes and in dusty conditions--severe circumstances. Hopefully, the lens won't have a problem in bad weather. I'm already hiding the lenses I have for the D7200 unless it is completely dry. None of them are weather-sealed.
It looks a bit small on the D7200. I suppose the small size was important to get it onto the D3300.
Hopefully, I'll be out shortly to actually shoot with it.
They both do very well. I had to change the Nikon photo's white balance, probably because I'm still having new user problems.
Speed of operation is about as good as you can get on the D7200. The E-M1 is just amazingly quick and much faster than the D7200. It's not just 10 fps versus 6 fps burst mode but the fact that the E-M1 only has to deal with 16 MP, 12-bit files and the D7200 has 24MP, 14-bit files. I thought that the Expeed 4 class processor would be much faster, though.
Update 2016.04.01: I'm pleased to say that the Nikkor fisheye lens seems to work quite well, even though it was sold as used.
I've found the problem with the white balance control, but geez, what a maze to find it! Olympus' Super Control Panel is amazingly helpful. Even Panasonic's Quick Menu is more effective than the D7200's informational panel. Perhaps, the D500 without a mode dial would be more efficient without looking at the display, but the D7200 way is not working as well as I would like.
As far as I'm concerned, Nikon has technological advantages over Canon, but Nikon is behind everyone else for user interfaces for quick adjustments. I've heard that Olympus' menus are the worst but my experience is that all brands have crap for menus.
Back to the fisheye lenses, I haven't done extensive testing yet, but it would be a good assumption that I can use the Olympus combination much longer into the dark and still get sharp photos. I may test the Nikon combination tonight to see if it will actually focus down to EV -3 or thereabouts. My previous experiences with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ended in failure.
Looking a bit closer, there is fringing.
The Olympus combination shows less fringing, but I wonder if there is software correction affecting the outcome, since micro Four-Thirds bodies fix things too often. I suppose I'll try to put it in the GH4 or GX8 to see what happens. I'm usually too busy shooting to test.
Buying a Nikon D7200 was mostly an experiment in order to get wider angle landscape shots more easily. I've done that with the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lenses. These are not particularly responsive lenses and from the start, they've made the D7200 feel unresponsive, especially for someone who photographs sports 99% of the time. As I've slowed down because of my heart defect, I've been able to do more creative shots. Still, I pick up the Olympus E-M1 and 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens because of the difference in light gathering.
Oh, wait! APS-C versus micro Four-Thirds can't even be close. Well, I'm finding that real life is much different than examining a bunch of numbers and graphs. People who don't shoot much have been telling me how much greater APS-C is. The big difference I see between my GH4, GX8, E-M1 and the Nikon D7200 is that the Nikon body can record raw files with 14-bit depth rather than 12 bits. Automagically, that increased the possibility of better dynamic range, color, and more. Whether there is actually more is the real question. I assume that there is. Nikon has been good about wanting to deliver the best image quality.
In any case, I received the Nikkor lens about an hour ago and had lunch first, to give me some time to think.
To a certain extent, the difference in maximum aperture is offset by the higher ISO usability. So far, I've found a maximum ISO sensitivity of ISO 4000 with the D7200 versus ISO 3200 for micro Four-Thirds. Yes, you can go much higher and get something but for photographing sports, I have to be more careful. Once it's fairly dark, neither is going to be okay without extra lighting. However, auto focus on the D7200 goes down to EV -3 and the GH4 and GX8 goes down to EV -4. I can't find a figure for the E-M1 but it has been decent in very low light, although it thinks a lot at that point.
Taking the Nikkor lens out of the box and wrapping, I was surprised how utterly small it is for a dSLR lens. It's not much bigger than the Olympus micro Four-Thirds fisheye lens. Yes, it's a DX format lens, so it can be smaller. The best thing is that it can be used on the FX format camera bodies in DX mode. (However, without weather-sealing and with a smaller maximum aperture, it isn't a surprise than the Nikkor lens is small. If it had similar attributes, it would be much larger.)
 |
| Olympus 8mm f/1.8 versus Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 DX |
 |
| Olympus 8mm f/1.8 versus Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 DX |
As with all Nikkor lenses, I struggle to figure out which lenses are weather-sealed. At full price of roughly US$775, I would expect that it would be. That doesn't mean that it is, and from the description in the listing, I would say that it is not. They mentioned some dust inside the lens--that did not affect image quality. I've never had such a problem with my Olympus lenses, even though I'd used them out in hurricanes and in dusty conditions--severe circumstances. Hopefully, the lens won't have a problem in bad weather. I'm already hiding the lenses I have for the D7200 unless it is completely dry. None of them are weather-sealed.
 |
| E-M1/Olympus 8mm f/1.8 versus D7200/10.5mm f/2.8 |
It looks a bit small on the D7200. I suppose the small size was important to get it onto the D3300.
Hopefully, I'll be out shortly to actually shoot with it.
 |
| Nikkor 10.5mm on D7200 |
 |
| Olympus 8mm on E-M1 |
Speed of operation is about as good as you can get on the D7200. The E-M1 is just amazingly quick and much faster than the D7200. It's not just 10 fps versus 6 fps burst mode but the fact that the E-M1 only has to deal with 16 MP, 12-bit files and the D7200 has 24MP, 14-bit files. I thought that the Expeed 4 class processor would be much faster, though.
Update 2016.04.01: I'm pleased to say that the Nikkor fisheye lens seems to work quite well, even though it was sold as used.
I've found the problem with the white balance control, but geez, what a maze to find it! Olympus' Super Control Panel is amazingly helpful. Even Panasonic's Quick Menu is more effective than the D7200's informational panel. Perhaps, the D500 without a mode dial would be more efficient without looking at the display, but the D7200 way is not working as well as I would like.
As far as I'm concerned, Nikon has technological advantages over Canon, but Nikon is behind everyone else for user interfaces for quick adjustments. I've heard that Olympus' menus are the worst but my experience is that all brands have crap for menus.
Back to the fisheye lenses, I haven't done extensive testing yet, but it would be a good assumption that I can use the Olympus combination much longer into the dark and still get sharp photos. I may test the Nikon combination tonight to see if it will actually focus down to EV -3 or thereabouts. My previous experiences with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ended in failure.
Looking a bit closer, there is fringing.
 |
| Nikon |
 |
| Olympus |
Monday, March 7, 2016
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 and 50-100mm f/1.8 versus Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 and 35-100mm f/2.0
Since the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 Art lens was announced, I've been thinking about the correlation of this lens with the Olympus SHG ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 and the relationship from the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 to the Olympus SHG ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 lens.
It almost seems as though Sigma is doing this for bragging rights alone.
I have three of these lenses and I'm contemplating the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8.
Mostly, I photograph at skate parks. That requires very responsive camera bodies and lenses. So far, the Nikon D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens combination has been better at wide-normal casual situations. Obviously, the lens isn't part of Sigma's Sport line but is part of their Art line.
The two Olympus lenses were part of their Super High Grade line, which meant that they could be used in any situations requiring the utmost quality and weather-sealing--and that they were very costly, somewhat above US$2000. I've used the 35-100mm f/2.0 lens for indoor high school sports such as swimming and basketball. The almost 3:1 zoom is 135 Format equivalent to 70-200mm, and not a bad range.
The trouble with the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 lens is that it has a limited range, similar to the 18-35mm f/1.8 lens. Occasionally, I switch the D7200 from DX coverage to 1.3x, to effectively extend the far end of the lens. It uses less of the sensor and therefore, less of the lens, so image quality should be improved at the edges.
Also, I find the 18-35mm f/1.8 lens to be very good, but not great. The Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 on micro Four-Thirds equipment still works better for me, but the balance is off, even with the GH4. I wish that there was a tripod collar for the 14-35mm f/2.0 lens.
My experience with the 18-35mm f/1.8 not being incredibly good, I'm not enthusiastic about spending US$1099.99 on the 50-100mm f/1.8. It's not that I feel a need to buy it, but that it would make a good companion for the 18-35mm f/1.8. I suspect that, if I got a US$200-300 discount, I'd be much more likely to buy it, as I did with the 18-35mm f/1.8 lens.
I was watching a video espousing an opinion about the lens and it was somewhat amusing. I'd never seen that person's videos or web site, but the video was mistaken, at least, on the Nikon side about the possibilities for use of the 50-100mm f/1.8 lens.
At this point, I may not buy another lens for the D7200, although a normal zoom or the Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye lens could be useful. I'd really like to see the D7200 work well.
It almost seems as though Sigma is doing this for bragging rights alone.
I have three of these lenses and I'm contemplating the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8.
Mostly, I photograph at skate parks. That requires very responsive camera bodies and lenses. So far, the Nikon D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens combination has been better at wide-normal casual situations. Obviously, the lens isn't part of Sigma's Sport line but is part of their Art line.
The two Olympus lenses were part of their Super High Grade line, which meant that they could be used in any situations requiring the utmost quality and weather-sealing--and that they were very costly, somewhat above US$2000. I've used the 35-100mm f/2.0 lens for indoor high school sports such as swimming and basketball. The almost 3:1 zoom is 135 Format equivalent to 70-200mm, and not a bad range.
The trouble with the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 lens is that it has a limited range, similar to the 18-35mm f/1.8 lens. Occasionally, I switch the D7200 from DX coverage to 1.3x, to effectively extend the far end of the lens. It uses less of the sensor and therefore, less of the lens, so image quality should be improved at the edges.
Also, I find the 18-35mm f/1.8 lens to be very good, but not great. The Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 on micro Four-Thirds equipment still works better for me, but the balance is off, even with the GH4. I wish that there was a tripod collar for the 14-35mm f/2.0 lens.
My experience with the 18-35mm f/1.8 not being incredibly good, I'm not enthusiastic about spending US$1099.99 on the 50-100mm f/1.8. It's not that I feel a need to buy it, but that it would make a good companion for the 18-35mm f/1.8. I suspect that, if I got a US$200-300 discount, I'd be much more likely to buy it, as I did with the 18-35mm f/1.8 lens.
I was watching a video espousing an opinion about the lens and it was somewhat amusing. I'd never seen that person's videos or web site, but the video was mistaken, at least, on the Nikon side about the possibilities for use of the 50-100mm f/1.8 lens.
At this point, I may not buy another lens for the D7200, although a normal zoom or the Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye lens could be useful. I'd really like to see the D7200 work well.
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Enhancing photos: How much is too much?
I'm a person who likes the truth. What I photograph is what was there. I don't add things to enhance the image. I don't go for tricks, though I probably did that when i started.
While the Nikon D7200 has 14-bit raw files, I'm not sure whether the image quality and dynamic range actually have a huge advantage over micro Four-Thirds bodies in real life.
So, with all that in mind, the following photo has been enhanced by Macphun's Intensify application for Macs.
I'm not sure how I feel about the over the top enhancement, but it conveys what I was feeling, even though it is too much.
Tried this again, via Styles in Phase One to give an older, film look to the photo. It's not bad, but I'm not sure how I feel about the manipulation.
Update 2017.01.01: I'm still messing with Macphun products, including their new raw development environment Luminar.
I have to experiment a lot but some of these filters, techniques provide useful results, allowing the viewer to see what is often hidden.
While the Nikon D7200 has 14-bit raw files, I'm not sure whether the image quality and dynamic range actually have a huge advantage over micro Four-Thirds bodies in real life.
So, with all that in mind, the following photo has been enhanced by Macphun's Intensify application for Macs.
I'm not sure how I feel about the over the top enhancement, but it conveys what I was feeling, even though it is too much.
Tried this again, via Styles in Phase One to give an older, film look to the photo. It's not bad, but I'm not sure how I feel about the manipulation.
Update 2017.01.01: I'm still messing with Macphun products, including their new raw development environment Luminar.
 |
| Original photo |
 |
| Using Blue Sky filter |
I have to experiment a lot but some of these filters, techniques provide useful results, allowing the viewer to see what is often hidden.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Is a mirror-less body's viewfinder placement that important?
I've seen a huge number of comments about rangefinder-like placement versus SLR-like placement of the viewfinder. Many turn to heated arguments, for reasons unknown to me. I suspect that it has to do with a person's original comfort (warm and fuzzy?) zone.
I've used a bit of everything but I eventually used SLRs more than anything else. The only time I was truly uncomfortable was using a point-and-shoot camera where you look through a blank viewfinder and hope that what you want will be in focus.
To this day, I don't care for working with the rear display of a modern digital camera, when a proper viewfinder and focusing mechanism is available.
I use the following camera bodies:
I had the Panasonic GH3 as my first micro Four-Thirds camera body and later, traded it for the E-M1 to ensure the trade-in value didn't drop when the GH4 was available.
For the most part, the only difference working with the bodies is whether I use an optical viewfinder or an EVF (electronic viewfinder). In good light, I appreciate the optical viewfinder but in the dark, any EVF is more helpful, even when the refresh rate drops.
I agreed when someone mentioned the nose up against the rear of the camera being inconvenient. It seems as though I have changed settings on the E-M1 because there is no cover over the rear display. Beyond that, I don't see an advantage to one position over the other.
I use the E-M1, GH4, and GX8 almost daily. Sometimes, I use two of them together. As far as I'm concerned, they're just camera bodies--tools, weapons, as people say. I suppose I'm very different than most.
On the GX8, I find the tilt more important than the placement, which is a strong reason as to why I bought it. There are times when I must tilt the rear display and with the bright sun, I can't see much of anything. The tilting EVF works very, very well. I find it interesting that the people who like the tilting EVF hate the articulated rear display. I appreciate being able to set the display to all sorts of angles to take architectural photos or skate park video.
I suppose my only warm-and-fuzzy preference is to have a viewfinder that actually helps me focus.
I've used a bit of everything but I eventually used SLRs more than anything else. The only time I was truly uncomfortable was using a point-and-shoot camera where you look through a blank viewfinder and hope that what you want will be in focus.
To this day, I don't care for working with the rear display of a modern digital camera, when a proper viewfinder and focusing mechanism is available.
I use the following camera bodies:
- Olympus E-1
- Olympus E-5
- Olympus E-M1
- Panasonic GH4
- Nikon D7200
- Panasonic GX8
I had the Panasonic GH3 as my first micro Four-Thirds camera body and later, traded it for the E-M1 to ensure the trade-in value didn't drop when the GH4 was available.
For the most part, the only difference working with the bodies is whether I use an optical viewfinder or an EVF (electronic viewfinder). In good light, I appreciate the optical viewfinder but in the dark, any EVF is more helpful, even when the refresh rate drops.
I agreed when someone mentioned the nose up against the rear of the camera being inconvenient. It seems as though I have changed settings on the E-M1 because there is no cover over the rear display. Beyond that, I don't see an advantage to one position over the other.
I use the E-M1, GH4, and GX8 almost daily. Sometimes, I use two of them together. As far as I'm concerned, they're just camera bodies--tools, weapons, as people say. I suppose I'm very different than most.
On the GX8, I find the tilt more important than the placement, which is a strong reason as to why I bought it. There are times when I must tilt the rear display and with the bright sun, I can't see much of anything. The tilting EVF works very, very well. I find it interesting that the people who like the tilting EVF hate the articulated rear display. I appreciate being able to set the display to all sorts of angles to take architectural photos or skate park video.
I suppose my only warm-and-fuzzy preference is to have a viewfinder that actually helps me focus.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Nikon D500--no D400 coming
Nikon has just announced the successor to the D300s--the D500.
It has 3 times the auto focus points--153 and uses an Expeed 5-class processor to speed up things, up to ISO 51,200 sensitivity in the normal range, with a Hi5 setting equivalent to 1,640,000.
"Approx. 10 fps continuous shooting (up to 200 shots in 14-bit lossless compress RAW)" using XQD cards.
It has a sliding, touch-enabled rear display of 3.2 inches.
While it does Super35-compatible 4K video at 30p, it doesn't seem better than the Panasonic GH4 at this point, for video. (Apparently, the D5 does fewer than 4 minutes of 4K video?)
It seems like a great stills camera body, though. I wish they'd announced this in 2015, instead of the D7200. At US$1999.95, it's $300 more than I would have expected but the new AF module and better processor are likely worth it.
As I have the D7200, I would like to think that my choice would have been more difficult between the D500 and D7200, especially if the D500 would have been available in April 2015, and at US$1699.95.
I have not found the D7200 enough of a breakthrough model for me, nor the move (for me) to APS-C to be more than marginally better than micro Four-Thirds, unfortunately. I am pleased with the D7200 for wide work, but it is sufficient, not exceptional. Perhaps, hopefully, the D500 is exceptional.
Oh, and if you're wondering why there is no D400, it would have arrived at the same time as the D4, but they supposedly couldn't give it enough of a difference to create such a flagship DX model.
Update 2016.06.27: You've probably seen plenty about the D500 by now. It's quite tempting. It should be since it securely replaces a model from 2007. Although opinions differ, for me, it is the pinnacle of APS-C equipment, not the FujiFilm X-Pro 2.
I was quite amused that DxOMark used the Olympus E-30 as a model for comparison. Was there someone at the company who held tight to the E-30? Seeing the E-30 at 55 and the Panasonic GH4 at 74 shows how far micro Four-Thirds has come. I'm not sure I believe a score of 83 for the D500 and 87 for the D7200 because the D7200 doesn't seem quite so wonderful and the newer Expeed 5 class processor along with a slightly lower resolution should give better, not worse results. Then again, I don't really believe DxOMark numbers, except as a very general guide.
Update 2016.10.05: The more I think about the D500, I appreciate what it does, but wouldn't the Pentax K-1 do a better job, except for the speed?
It has 3 times the auto focus points--153 and uses an Expeed 5-class processor to speed up things, up to ISO 51,200 sensitivity in the normal range, with a Hi5 setting equivalent to 1,640,000.
"Approx. 10 fps continuous shooting (up to 200 shots in 14-bit lossless compress RAW)" using XQD cards.
It has a sliding, touch-enabled rear display of 3.2 inches.
While it does Super35-compatible 4K video at 30p, it doesn't seem better than the Panasonic GH4 at this point, for video. (Apparently, the D5 does fewer than 4 minutes of 4K video?)
It seems like a great stills camera body, though. I wish they'd announced this in 2015, instead of the D7200. At US$1999.95, it's $300 more than I would have expected but the new AF module and better processor are likely worth it.
As I have the D7200, I would like to think that my choice would have been more difficult between the D500 and D7200, especially if the D500 would have been available in April 2015, and at US$1699.95.
I have not found the D7200 enough of a breakthrough model for me, nor the move (for me) to APS-C to be more than marginally better than micro Four-Thirds, unfortunately. I am pleased with the D7200 for wide work, but it is sufficient, not exceptional. Perhaps, hopefully, the D500 is exceptional.
Oh, and if you're wondering why there is no D400, it would have arrived at the same time as the D4, but they supposedly couldn't give it enough of a difference to create such a flagship DX model.
Update 2016.06.27: You've probably seen plenty about the D500 by now. It's quite tempting. It should be since it securely replaces a model from 2007. Although opinions differ, for me, it is the pinnacle of APS-C equipment, not the FujiFilm X-Pro 2.
I was quite amused that DxOMark used the Olympus E-30 as a model for comparison. Was there someone at the company who held tight to the E-30? Seeing the E-30 at 55 and the Panasonic GH4 at 74 shows how far micro Four-Thirds has come. I'm not sure I believe a score of 83 for the D500 and 87 for the D7200 because the D7200 doesn't seem quite so wonderful and the newer Expeed 5 class processor along with a slightly lower resolution should give better, not worse results. Then again, I don't really believe DxOMark numbers, except as a very general guide.
Update 2016.10.05: The more I think about the D500, I appreciate what it does, but wouldn't the Pentax K-1 do a better job, except for the speed?
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for Nikon D7200, with samples
For 2015, the D7200 is slightly better than adequate. I chose it over the D5500 for two reasons:
- 1/8000th of a second maximum shutter speed
- weather-sealed body
My reason for choosing a camera body with APS-C sized sensor is that I wanted an easier ability to take wide-angle photos. The sensor is different enough from micro Four-Thirds sensors that it should help when I need a landscape. Unfortunately, the Sigma 18-35mm isn't very wide, an effective 135 Format range of 27-52.5mm.
Given that Olympus recently introduced the 7-14mm f/2.8 lens, I considered it for my Olympus and Panasonic bodies. That would give an effective 135 Format range of 14-28mm. It is plenty wide and fast enough until twilight with the E-M1's inbuilt image stabilization.
The only problem is the US$1299.99 cost. I could buy the lens, but it's a niche lens for me. The 12-40mm f/2.8 lens from Olympus or 12-35mm f/2.35 lens from Panasonic is what I usually use. I photograph at skate parks regularly, and I rarely do a landscape.
I've been looking at a few wide lenses for the Nikon, after all, the sensor helps, and getting lenses that don't have to be extremely wide might lessen the cost.
It seemed as the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 was a very good choice, even though the range is extremely limited. An effective 135 Format range of 16.5-24mm is useful, but it makes the lens rather a special purpose lens, don't you think?
At US$359.00 (US$120 off), it didn't take much prodding to get me to buy it. It's obviously not weather-sealed but like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, that might be okay if the image quality is better than good. It's not likely that I'm going to do rainy landscapes. If that was important to me, I'd have saved going to Nikon and just bought the Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 ultra wide angle lens.
In any case, I'm waiting for the package to arrive.
2015.12.17: Got the package at a little before 2 p.m. and I unpacked the lens, re-packed my backpack, and headed out the door. I went to a point in the foothills above the San Francisco Bay Area near Fremont to get some photos. Haven't had a chance to copy anything to the computer yet. Should update with samples soon.
Lens works smoothly. Manual focus is actuated by pulling the focus ring toward the camera body, just like my Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens. That's so easy to remember that I didn't think about it.
 |
| Manual Focus engaged with the focus ring back |
 |
| Auto Focus engaged with the focus ring forward |
Lens has a 77mm filter size, which is slightly larger than the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 (72mm filter) but the lens doesn't seem huge at all. I suspect having a focal length range of only 5mm has a lot to do with that. Once again, I bought the D7200 because of the wide angle possibilities that were more difficult with micro Four-Thirds.
 |
| All my 77mm filter sized lenses |
 |
| Tokina at 11mm f/9.0 |
 |
| Tokina at 16mm f/9.0 |
 |
| Tokina at 11mm f/9.0 |
 |
| Tokina at 11mm f/9.0 |
 |
| Tokina at 16mm f/4.0 |
 |
| Sigma at 18mm f/9.0 |
 |
| Sigma at 18mm f/9.0 |
 |
| Sigma at 18mm f/9.0 |
 |
| Sigma at 19mm f/9.0 |
 |
| Sigma 18-35mm and Tokina 11-16mm |
I used the Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye as a reference to the wide end. It has a 135 Format equivalent focal length of 16mm while the wide end of the Tokina is roughly 16.5mm. The D7200 photos were taken at DX crop (rather than 1.3x, which would have given the D7200 a focal length multiplier like the Olympus E-M1 that was also used) and at 14-bit depth for better dynamic range. D-Lighting was not used.
 |
| Olympus 8mm at f/6.3 |
 |
| Olympus 8mm at f/9.0 |
 |
| Olympus 8mm fisheye and Tokina 11-16mm |
All of the lenses used provided good flare resistance with the sun in frame but were not perfect. Obviously, the lens hoods weren't of much use when the lenses were directly pointed toward the sun. The raw files of the photos were imported into Phase One Capture One Pro 8, without any further adjustment and output at 25% of the original size.
Update 2015.12.18: In two years, the lens must have changed a bit. Lens Tip seems to agree with my opinion more often than not, but this review seems to say that the 11-16mm is a bit more problematic than I have seen. Oh, looking at Tokina's page on the lens fixed everything. The Nikon got a focusing motor for all those low-end bodies (D40, D60, etc.) that didn't have a focusing motor in the body. The lens for Canon didn't get any update, so it apparently still has the old style motor that is noisy.
To me, every lens should have a focusing motor instead of depending on the camera body having it. Then again, I don't want to use 30 year old lenses. I want to use lenses with modern optics and coatings. That's another reason I chose Olympus' Four-Thirds system in 2004.
Update 2016.01.24: Shots from the Tokina 11-16mm from the other day at a different location.
Saturday, August 15, 2015
Familiarizing myself with the Nikon D7200
My experience with Nikon goes back to the F2 film model, and other than holding a few newer, digital models, hasn't progressed past that. That is a long, long time. When I was looking for a dSLR in 2003/2004, I looked at the Nikon D70/D100, Canon, and Pentax models before purchasing an Olympus E-1. The others weren't very good in 2004 and I didn't regret buying into Four-Thirds until 2010 or thereabouts. I'm actively using micro Four-Thirds now, so the sensors really aren't the huge problem that people would believe, especially for people who don't stress the equipment as much as I do photographing sports.
I was ready to buy the Nikon D300 but it was three years old or so in 2011, and I'd have to duplicate a lot of equipment to do what I was doing at the time. Replacing high end lenses is not cheap, and the big two want to make sure you pay big. The D300s wasn't more than a compromise to add video. The Olympus E-5 was too easy a choice. It extended my ability to shoot with my arsenal of lenses and it wasn't awful. It felt like it was about three years too late, but it worked well.
Now that the D7200 is out, I talked to a salesperson about it, after reading practically every preview I could find. I got a deal on the D7200 + Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 and that sold it for me, as I needed lower light capabilities. Photographing inside an indoor skate park a few months ago, I realized how well things worked at ISO 3200, and I wasn't impressed, although the Panasonic GH4 kept up while recording video. The D7200 has two black and white modes at ISO 51,200 and 102,400. That sounded great.
In reality, what sounded great hasn't proven yet to be great. I'm sure that will come. In the meantime, I am finding too many new user problems, such as finding how to select an auto focus pattern. On my current Panasonic and Olympus equipment, it's fairly easy to select a pattern. Even on the Pentax K-50, it was fairly simple to find the setting. Nikon cleverly hides it in plain sight, but not before confusing me with a menu item for the selection of 51 or 11 AF points. The AF/MF toggle switch is to the left of the bottom of the lens mount. There is a button that is to be pressed and held while the rear dial is being rotated which changes the auto focus pattern.
I've tried the scatter pattern AF (it is usually the default) on various camera bodies over the years, when I started to use AF, and found it to focus on everything but what I wanted. Nikon's scatter pattern may guess better or the depth of field is good, so many photos seem close to what I want--and frustratingly far from being in focus. That should change now that I have a single focus point activated. Unfortunately, I wasted a lot of photos, unable to get what I wanted.
Besides that, selecting the focus point seems to be hidden, holding that the same button and the moving it with the four-way directional pad. In some ways, this is a good thing, although I seem to accidentally change it anyway. The Olympus E-M1 is far too easy to accidentally change the focus point by pressing the OK button, which brings up the Super Control Panel and defaults to the focus point selection, and it can be moved with the rear dial. It's easier to select it my touching the display but that isn't accidental. The Super Control Panel on the E-5 is practically perfect, and there is no touch panel. You navigate to the AF pattern selection, press the OK button, and you have three patterns at the bottom from which to choose, and you use the rear dial to move the focus point.
Coming from the Panasonic GH3 and GH4, and even the Olympus E-M1, I'm not seeing great lower light AF capabilities. During a walk about 11 p.m., I didn't get half the photos. The GH3 and GH4 focus down to EV -4, so I can depend on them, and the E-M1 tends to hunt a bit but almost always works. The D7200 just refused to work in half the instances, even though it can focus down to EV -3. Perhaps, it's partly the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens.
Then, there is the informational status display. Olympus has the interactive Super Control Panel. I first used it on the E-5 dSLR. It is an effective and quick way to change important settings. Panasonic has a Quick Menu, which is different but also helpful way to get things done. Nikon has a display of settings. Yeah, thanks but it doesn't help. It just means that I have to dive into the menu or find a physical button that helps me change settings.
e.g., the ISO sensitivity button in the leftmost column of buttons. Holding it presents me with a window that shows me ISO Auto and ISO number. Wait? It can be both at the same time? How do you know which is active? It would be less confusing if it was one list, with Auto only a selection in the list. Right now, it seems to default to ISO 25,600 no matter how bright out it is. I need to force it to ISO 200 to get decent image quality. Hopefully, firmware will take care of this problem.
The command dials are another new user problem, but after Olympus changed the behavior with the E-M1 (from what the dSLRs did), I no longer default to certain expectations.
Otherwise, things are working as expected. I shoot and it works reasonably well. I'm not pleased at this point. It seems broken and only firmware will fix it. I can learn to use it, but I can't fix anything but the new user problems. It should be good in a few months when Nikon update the firmware and I've acclimated myself to the body.
Update 2015.11.18: The D7200 has not become the helpful equipment I would have hoped. Sure, the more I use it, the less I have new user problems, but it still seems to fight me.
In August, I was shooting in a couple of indoor skate parks. The body insisted to use the highest ISO settings possible, and strangely, the image quality was poor. All those years of hearing how APS-C was incredibly better than (micro) Four-Thirds, it didn't seem all that true in real life. Even at ISO 200, I'm not seeing a huge difference. While the Panasonic GH4 was at ISO 200 and 400 in those indoor skate parks, the D7200 was using ISO 14,400.
The extremely high sensitivities of ISO 51,200 and 102,400 have been valuable in getting the shots but the image quality is only good enough for Instagram.
Hopefully, the body works much better with a Nikon lens because it certainly doesn't seem to do its best with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. I've ordered the USB dock for the lens, so that I can update the firmware. Perhaps that will help.
Update 2016.04.03: Now, I have the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, and Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 DX fisheye lenses. For working directly against the sun, the Sigma and Tokina work fairly well. The Nikkor works a bit better, probably because of coatings.
I took the Nikkor out at around 10:30 p.m. last night and it was more eager to work on the D7200, but it still didn't seem ready. I pumped up the ISO sensitivity to 5000 and it seemed fine but what wouldn't work fine at that sensitivity?
I still need to assess the photos but I deleted a few already because they weren't steady enough.
I was ready to buy the Nikon D300 but it was three years old or so in 2011, and I'd have to duplicate a lot of equipment to do what I was doing at the time. Replacing high end lenses is not cheap, and the big two want to make sure you pay big. The D300s wasn't more than a compromise to add video. The Olympus E-5 was too easy a choice. It extended my ability to shoot with my arsenal of lenses and it wasn't awful. It felt like it was about three years too late, but it worked well.
Now that the D7200 is out, I talked to a salesperson about it, after reading practically every preview I could find. I got a deal on the D7200 + Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 and that sold it for me, as I needed lower light capabilities. Photographing inside an indoor skate park a few months ago, I realized how well things worked at ISO 3200, and I wasn't impressed, although the Panasonic GH4 kept up while recording video. The D7200 has two black and white modes at ISO 51,200 and 102,400. That sounded great.
In reality, what sounded great hasn't proven yet to be great. I'm sure that will come. In the meantime, I am finding too many new user problems, such as finding how to select an auto focus pattern. On my current Panasonic and Olympus equipment, it's fairly easy to select a pattern. Even on the Pentax K-50, it was fairly simple to find the setting. Nikon cleverly hides it in plain sight, but not before confusing me with a menu item for the selection of 51 or 11 AF points. The AF/MF toggle switch is to the left of the bottom of the lens mount. There is a button that is to be pressed and held while the rear dial is being rotated which changes the auto focus pattern.
I've tried the scatter pattern AF (it is usually the default) on various camera bodies over the years, when I started to use AF, and found it to focus on everything but what I wanted. Nikon's scatter pattern may guess better or the depth of field is good, so many photos seem close to what I want--and frustratingly far from being in focus. That should change now that I have a single focus point activated. Unfortunately, I wasted a lot of photos, unable to get what I wanted.
Besides that, selecting the focus point seems to be hidden, holding that the same button and the moving it with the four-way directional pad. In some ways, this is a good thing, although I seem to accidentally change it anyway. The Olympus E-M1 is far too easy to accidentally change the focus point by pressing the OK button, which brings up the Super Control Panel and defaults to the focus point selection, and it can be moved with the rear dial. It's easier to select it my touching the display but that isn't accidental. The Super Control Panel on the E-5 is practically perfect, and there is no touch panel. You navigate to the AF pattern selection, press the OK button, and you have three patterns at the bottom from which to choose, and you use the rear dial to move the focus point.
Coming from the Panasonic GH3 and GH4, and even the Olympus E-M1, I'm not seeing great lower light AF capabilities. During a walk about 11 p.m., I didn't get half the photos. The GH3 and GH4 focus down to EV -4, so I can depend on them, and the E-M1 tends to hunt a bit but almost always works. The D7200 just refused to work in half the instances, even though it can focus down to EV -3. Perhaps, it's partly the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens.
Then, there is the informational status display. Olympus has the interactive Super Control Panel. I first used it on the E-5 dSLR. It is an effective and quick way to change important settings. Panasonic has a Quick Menu, which is different but also helpful way to get things done. Nikon has a display of settings. Yeah, thanks but it doesn't help. It just means that I have to dive into the menu or find a physical button that helps me change settings.
e.g., the ISO sensitivity button in the leftmost column of buttons. Holding it presents me with a window that shows me ISO Auto and ISO number. Wait? It can be both at the same time? How do you know which is active? It would be less confusing if it was one list, with Auto only a selection in the list. Right now, it seems to default to ISO 25,600 no matter how bright out it is. I need to force it to ISO 200 to get decent image quality. Hopefully, firmware will take care of this problem.
The command dials are another new user problem, but after Olympus changed the behavior with the E-M1 (from what the dSLRs did), I no longer default to certain expectations.
Otherwise, things are working as expected. I shoot and it works reasonably well. I'm not pleased at this point. It seems broken and only firmware will fix it. I can learn to use it, but I can't fix anything but the new user problems. It should be good in a few months when Nikon update the firmware and I've acclimated myself to the body.
Update 2015.11.18: The D7200 has not become the helpful equipment I would have hoped. Sure, the more I use it, the less I have new user problems, but it still seems to fight me.
In August, I was shooting in a couple of indoor skate parks. The body insisted to use the highest ISO settings possible, and strangely, the image quality was poor. All those years of hearing how APS-C was incredibly better than (micro) Four-Thirds, it didn't seem all that true in real life. Even at ISO 200, I'm not seeing a huge difference. While the Panasonic GH4 was at ISO 200 and 400 in those indoor skate parks, the D7200 was using ISO 14,400.
The extremely high sensitivities of ISO 51,200 and 102,400 have been valuable in getting the shots but the image quality is only good enough for Instagram.
Hopefully, the body works much better with a Nikon lens because it certainly doesn't seem to do its best with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. I've ordered the USB dock for the lens, so that I can update the firmware. Perhaps that will help.
Update 2016.04.03: Now, I have the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, and Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 DX fisheye lenses. For working directly against the sun, the Sigma and Tokina work fairly well. The Nikkor works a bit better, probably because of coatings.
I took the Nikkor out at around 10:30 p.m. last night and it was more eager to work on the D7200, but it still didn't seem ready. I pumped up the ISO sensitivity to 5000 and it seemed fine but what wouldn't work fine at that sensitivity?
I still need to assess the photos but I deleted a few already because they weren't steady enough.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Nikon D7200 and incredibly high ISO photos: 51,200 and 102,400
The difficult part of photographing sports is getting enough light to capture the action. Anyone who has attempted to photograph night games, such as American football, knows that it is extremely difficult, even with a Nikon D4.
Photographing in Florida in early spring outdoors was even difficult. I was photographing a lacrosse game from 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. and it went from bright and warm enough (75 degrees F) to dark and cold by the end. Having had frostbite, I had another obstacle in working the controls as my fingers seemed less flexible. In 2006, I had a choice of using ISO 400 sensitivity and a GN50 flash.
This March, I was photographing a competition at an indoor skate park, which meant ISO 3200 and some hope. Since I was taking still photos and video, it wasn't possible to use artificial light and make it work. The image quality was sufficient.
The Nikon D7200 is supposed to be so much more in low light and HI1 (ISO 51,200) and HI2 (ISO 102,400). These black and white modes could give someone an edge in getting clear sports photos. The Nikon D4 featured ISO sensitivity up to 102,400. That is a huge deal. Since the D7200 has an Expeed 4-class processor, it should be able to increase the image quality over the D7100.
 |
| ISO 102,400 |
 |
| ISO 51,200 |
 |
| ISO 25,600 |
 |
| ISO 51,200 |
 |
| ISO 25,600 |
There is a great deal of banding in the ISO 51,200 and 102,400 photos. It can't be seen so well with these 25% sized photos. These were taken July 31, 2015 around the time of the blue moon.
Still, if it means getting the shot over not getting the shot, should there be a question?
Update 2015.08.03: The D7200 seems to be easily provoked into using ISO 25,600, more than the Panasonic GH4 or Olympus E-M1 that I use regularly. I know that the ISO sensitivity numbers seem off for the GH4 and E-M1 but from ISO 3200 on those to 25,600 on the D7200? I hope that there will be a number of firmware fixes because the image quality does not seem superior from this new Nikon body and the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens.
Update 2015.08.03: The D7200 seems to be easily provoked into using ISO 25,600, more than the Panasonic GH4 or Olympus E-M1 that I use regularly. I know that the ISO sensitivity numbers seem off for the GH4 and E-M1 but from ISO 3200 on those to 25,600 on the D7200? I hope that there will be a number of firmware fixes because the image quality does not seem superior from this new Nikon body and the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)