Nikkor 85mm F1.4 versus 50mm F1.4 and 105mm Micro VR

I rented the AF Nikkor 85mm F1.4D and the AFS Micro Nikkor 105mm F2.8 VR over the weekend to try them out. Unfortunately, due to poor weather I was unable to shoot as many pictures as I had hoped. Nevertheless I was able to take some test pictures comparing the bokeh of the three lenses. The tests can be seen at:

Flickr Set 1
Flickr Set 2

Following are my general observations.

The 85mm has a very nice bokeh at F1.4, and it is sharp enough to be used at this aperture. However, there are color aberrations that are visible at maximum aperture. I found that it was difficult to get accurate focus on moving targets (a child) with this lens and the D300. Focusing wasn't slow as such, but somehow the camera did not track very well. This could be a user error as I am not used to taking action pictures. The lens is very well built, and is made of metal. I found that shooting subjects with a bright background created a loss of contrast due to flare. The lens I was using has a serial number 213792 and appeared to have been well used; so this could be just an issue with this sample.

Overall I was happy with the 85mm F1.4 but main concerns are ability to get correct focus and the color aberrations at maximum aperture.

The 105mm Micro VR is a huge lens. It is amazing how big it is compared to my 105mm F2.5 manual focus lens. It is fat and ugly, and looks too large on my D300. The lens appears to have at least part metal build; the focus is very fast at normal distances. The AFS motor just zips into focus; it is much faster than the 60mm F2.8 AFS lens, and the 50mm F1.4 AFS. Perhaps the size of the AFS motor makes a difference to the speed. This was my first experience with a VR lens; I was surprised to hear noises coming out of the lens when VR was enabled. For the test shots I disabled VR. I think VR is useful but I worry that it may make the lens more susceptible to break downs in the longer term. I also feel concerned that a VR lens by its nature is likely to suffer from centering problems, as the VR unit has to move up/down inside the lens.

From a bokeh point of view, I found that the 105mm Micro lens has a smooth bokeh, which can challenge the 85mm F1.4 at equivalent apertures. Of course, the 85mm has a larger aperture, which allows it generate the best bokeh (when used at F1.4) amongst the three lenses. The 50mm F1.4 generates the worst bokeh, as can be seen from the sample pictures.

The 85mm has the best build quality of the lot, and I hope that Nikon does not replace it with a more plastic bodied lens. As the construction is relatively simple and lacks a focusing motor, I presume that this lens is also the most robust and likely to survive the longest.

Ricoh GXR - a mistake?

I like my GR Digital III because it has a sharp fast wide angle lens. So much so that I am now thinking seriously about pairing it with a Nikon D300 equipped with a fast medium telephoto such as the 85mm F1.4 AF - this will be the perfect combination of portability and quality.

The recently announced Ricoh GXR camera doesn't excite me at all - in fact I think it is a very silly idea. Ricoh could have made a camera that used the Leica M mount, or even the micro-thirds mount. But to come up with a camera where the body itself has no functionality other than the display, the battery and the menu system is very silly, in my opinion.

The only cost saving it generates is for Ricoh. We as consumers must pay higher cost for the camera and lens combination; and new lenses will be more expensive than they need to be. And as many have pointed out, you do not want your lenses to become obsolete because the sensor attached to them is obsolete.

The quest for the ultimate film camera

Is the Nikon F6 the ultimate film camera?

Following features really interest me:

• Accurate metering - the colour matrix metering is supposed to be very good. The great thing about the F6 is that colour matrix metering works even with non CPU lenses, just like the D300/D3.
  
• Data imprint between frames - including date and exposure details - perfect!
• Interchangeable focusing screens - and a screen type that has a central micro-prism to aid manual focusing.
• Support for older non CPU lenses - and even non-AI lenses (after modification).

Other aspects that are equally interesting:

• Quiet and vibration free operation - I would love to compare the F6 with the Leica M6.
• Build quality - pro Nikons are built to last forever.
• Relatively small size as compared to F5, or the D series professional SLRs.

Pity that one can't rent the F6.

New ones are now exorbitantly priced - £1700 in the UK. That's the same price as that of D700.

I guess if you shoot film, then the F6 is the ultimate camera. It is perfect because it seems to have the best set of features amongst all film cameras.

Nikon D3s and Canon Eos 1D Mark IV

Nikon has lately been quite aggressive with its DSLR line, determined to hold on to its current market share I presume. Given that the imaging business is now the main revenue earner for Nikon, this is hardly surprising. I think that no one expected Nikon to completely revamp the imaging sensor in a point upgrade to the D3. A new FX sensor within 2 years of the old one, kudos to Nikon!

It is uncanny how Nikon and Canon appear to produce cameras with the same feature within a few weeks of each other. The Nikon D90 had HD video, and soon after the Canon 5DII came out with HD video. The same pattern has been repeated with the latest announcements - Nikon comes out with 102400 ISO, and Canon follows suit a week later.

Looking at the specifications, it seems that Canon has targeted sports photographers, sacrificing the FF sensor to keep to the 1.3x format. This along with the higher resolution should allow sports photographers greater reach and ability to crop.

The Nikon D3s, on the other hand, seems more targeted towards news photographers, although also thrown in is the 1.2x crop mode as a convenience to sports photographers. Thanks to the upgraded imaging sensor, the D3s is able to compete with the 1D Mark IV, despite being a two year old model.

Only time will tell which of these design choices is a winner.

Canon has an obvious advantage when it comes to the video implementation, due to its long experience with professional and amateur video cameras. But quite apart from this, a bias may be evident in how the video has been executed. The Canon appears to be targeting Videographers, whereas the Nikon is targeting primarily still photographers who want to take advantage of the occasional video.

These are just speculations on my part; it is unlikely that we will ever get to know the real reason for Canon sticking with the 1.3x format sensor, or for Nikon avoiding the 1080p HD video format. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that Canon believes 1.3x format is better for sports photographers, and had not anticipated the upgraded D3s. A 1D Mark IV with support for 102400 ISO and HD video, compared with the original D3, would have been a clear winner.

The introduction of D3s just before the announcement of the 1D Mark IV has despoiled Canon of a clear victory here. But Nikon's choice of 720p format video is puzzling. My guess is that the Expeed chip isn't fast enough, and that we will not see 1080p HD video until the next generation Expeed chip comes along.

The best thing with these two cameras is that each has its strengths, and there is no clear winner. Therefore photographers using either brand can get on with the job of taking more photographs, rather than agonizing over the superior features of the competitive brand.

Nikon would hit a home run if they introduced an upgrade to the D700 with the same sensor as in D3s. I for one would buy such a camera immediately. The D3s is too serious a camera for an amateur like me, therefore I could never justify buying one.

Ricoh GR Digital III - Part 4

Things about GRD3 that I wish were different.

• I wish the lens cap was a bit less fragile. As it stands, I feel scared that something will push it in and scratch the lens.
• The LCD can be switched off using the custom settings; but when you do so, it stays off and there is no way to check the camera settings, which makes it less than useful. I wish there was an option to just display the camera settings on the LCD rather than being completely off. As it is, I think it is better to leave the LCD on even when using the external viewfinder.
• Wish the external viewfinder were povided with a central AF square - as this would really make it useful in spot AF mode. As it is one has to guess where the focus point will be. 
• Now this is an odd one; I actually wish that the lens did not retract into the body and was completely fixed instead. This would make the lens more sturdy and the camera would be more responsive. But this would of course completely destroy the compactness of GRD3. 

My thoughts on rumored Nikon D3s

It is often that rumors are just wish lists, rather than reality. If a D3s was released, how likely is it that some of the rumored specs will be true?

• Better high ISO performance? Probably yes.
• 14 fps? I seriously doubt this unless this is in live view mode without the mirror flapping. As far as I know the Canon F1n High Speed camera with 14fps was the fastest ever SLR camera, but it used a fixed pellical mirror. In terms of speed, the runner up was the Nikon F3 High Speed camera, with a top speed of 13fps, but utilizing a pellical mirror as well.
• HD Video? Almost certainly given current trends, but I do hope it is not 720p again - that would be disaster in marketing terms, because Nikon's competition is sure to offer 1080p.
  

The D3 and D700 utilize a Nikon designed CMOS sensor unlike the D300 series, which uses Sony sensors. This means that we cannot necessarily draw conclusions about D3's capabilities from the specifications of the D300s.

I wish that Nikon were more forthcoming about their designs and limitations and challenges they face. As a customer I would appreciate if they explained why the D300s is limited to 720p, or why the 14-bit mode shows down the camera and increases the shutter lag. Is it a limitation of the sensor? Is it a limitation of Expeed processor? It would be good to know. Leica seems much more open about its designs, and this is widely appreciated.

To Leica M9 or not

One of the coolest things about Leica film cameras is that they seem to live for ever. My Leica CL is over 30 years old but I had it serviced by Leica recently, and I hope that it will now last another 30 years. The fact that Leica still service the CL, which was not even made by Leica, is amazing.

Leica equipment does not lose its resale value as fast as other brands. Therefore, owning Leica equipment is a sound investment in the long term as you can sell off stuff and get a decent amount of your investment back.

With the digital cameras, of course, this model may not work that well. As soon as the next camera is released, the older model starts loosing value immediately, and in a few years time, is worth a fraction of the original cost. You can already see that prices of used M8s have started falling. Nevertheless, I hope that Leica M8 cameras will hold their value longer compared to other brands. This will be true if Leica continue to service these cameras for several more years. Unfortunately it is hard to imagine that the M8 will be useful 30 years from now.

The problem with owning the M9 is that it is so expensive that you would be nervous carrying it with you everywhere. Certainly for someone like me, it would be big investment, and I would be worried about it getting stolen. Whereas the Ricoh GRD 3 is much cheaper, and pocketable as well, therefore I am carefree when I have it with me. And should GRD 4 come out next year, it would not cost much to upgrade.

For anyone addicted to upgrading their digital camera every year, investing in compacts makes more sense. Of course, when it comes to the quality of images, the large image sensor of the M9 or the DSLRs are much better.

So should I start saving for the M9 or not?

Maybe not. I am content for now with the combination of Nikon D300 and the Ricoh GR Digital 3.