Thoughts on Nikon D4 and Canon 1DX

I have watched Nikon and Canon compete with each other since the mid eighties when I first became interested in SLR cameras. With the EOS system Canon took away a lot of the pro photographers away from Nikon - primarily due to better autofocus, and later on, better digital sensor technology. But with the D3 Nikon fought back and at present there is more of a level playing field.

It seems that in recent years Nikon and Canon have been anticipating each others developments. The 1DX and D4 have both adopted a number of features that are uncannily similar to each other.

I personally have not used the D3 series cameras - I own a D300. I also own a Canon 1DS - which is quite primitive compared to today’s DSLRs. So my thoughts here are more armchair speculation than real life experience with these products.

With the 1DX, Canon had to prove their autofocus credentials which were dented by 1D Mark III and did not recover fully with 1D Mark IV. They seem to have gone for an all out redesign of the system - giving up their original 45 point design that they introduced way back with EOS-3 I think. They have even copied Nikon’s AF layout - presumably this says something about the effectiveness of Nikon’s design.

Canon have also completely reworked their mirror technology - replacing the one they introduced originally in the EOS 1V in 2000. The new method seems to be much faster than any prior implementation - 60ms blackout compared with 74ms blackout in D3 and 80ms blackout in 1D Mark IV. Shaving off 20 ms is a major achievement I think. Nikon seems to be still tweaking their F5 based design introduced in 1996. This system probably needs a major redesign to reach Canon’s level of efficiency. An alternative approach for Nikon would be to develop the technology they used in the Nikon 1 series cameras as this would remove the mirror speed barrier - but I think the on-sensor phase detection technology is not yet mature enough for a pro DSLR and may have some fundamental limitation (such as requirement to interpolate missing pixels or low light sensitivity of the AF pixels or the degree of de-focus that can be detected - Nikon is tight lipped about any limitations) that may mean that it will never match the mirror based approach.

The mirror blackout time is important as it increases the time available for the AF system to work. So at 10 fps, the Canon 1DX has more time available to track focus between shots, although that may be offset slightly by the Canon’s longer release lag of 55ms compared with Nikon D4’s 42ms. (Canon do say that the release lag can be reduced down to 36ms but I suspect this will work only when the max aperture is used so that the lens stop down time is eliminated.) Canon have also added more cross-type sensors - as well as improving their light sensitivity. So from a spec point of view, Canon’s AF system appears to have an advantage.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the 1DX performance in the field lives up to its specifications. Where the D4 has trumped the 1DX is in the ease of AF mode selection which no longer requires one to take the eye away from the viewfinder. Surely this is a major usability breakthrough - one that Canon must wish they had thought of. Canon is still relying on menus to configure AF mode selection. Canon’s AF options also appear far more complex - almost as if their auto modes are not as good as Nikon’s so the user must manually tweak the system.

On the sensor design front also the Canon system appears to be more efficient on paper - at least if one can infer this from the highest normal ISO rating of 51200 on the 1DX. Generally though my impression is that Canon rely more on noise suppression in software than Nikon - so it may well be that the higher ISOs in the 1DX use greater noise suppression - with potential side effects. But this is just speculation - the actual results will come out pretty soon. If Canon have indeed created a sensor that produces cleaner high ISO images than Nikon’s then it would be major advantage for Canon.

For Nikon the challenge must have been to maintain or surpass the D3S performance while increasing the number of pixels. I am glad that they stuck with ISO 12800 as the highest normal ISO - I hope this is because Nikon want a certain level of quality in the normal ISO range.

It seems that due to new laws in Japan, Nikon has reduced the battery capacity in D4. Also, Nikon's D4 design appears to be more power saving - for example less number of CPUs than the Canon 1DX, which uses two DIGIC 5 and one DIGIC 4 processors compared to a single EXPEED 3 processor in the D4. Given the restrictions on battery capacity - which presumably impacts the Canon 1DX as well - it will be interesting to see if the 1DX battery performance is as good as Nikon D4's. There is obviously a trade-off somewhere between meeting ever higher computing requirements and the power source available to support this requirement. Photographers do appreciate longer battery life - Nikon appears to work harder in this area traditionally than Canon.

My final thoughts are with regards to video implementation. Canon obviously have an edge here as they have been in the video business for long. But this advantage is also a disadvantage as it means Canon have more incentive to protect their video business - including the new Cinema EOS system. Nikon on the other hand have no competing video business - so they can go for an all out video implementation on their DSLRs. And they seem to have given it their best shot. The 2.7 crop mode which gives native 1080 resolution is a very clever move - I believe the Panasonic GH2 has a similar feature. Another feature that is desired by many is uncompressed 4:2:2 output via HDMI. The real test though will be the quality of the video capture - if Nikon has been able to achieve the same quality as Canon then they have a winner.

p.s. I previously put together some material on the Nikon mirror system here - http://www.cameragossip.com/nikon/nikon-f5-and-d3-shared-genes

The real significance of Nikon V1 and J1

The Nikon V1 and J1 cameras indicate where Nikon is heading with regards to digital video and mirror-less solutions. These cameras are harbingers of what is to come in the DSLR world. I think the most significant  technologies showcased by these cameras are:

• Phase detect autofocus at the sensor image plane - this is the holy grail for focus tracking of moving subjects. Until this technology is perfected, I do not think DSLRs can be supplanted in the professional world. I am hoping that Nikon will soon introduce this capability in the DSLRs.
• Combined video and still photography - the ability to take full resolution snaps during video means that the user can shoot video and take snaps at the same time.
• Full resolution high speed sequence photography - it seems that with the technology Nikon now have, it may be possible to take 30 frames per second even at a resolution of 20 megapixels. It would interesting to see if the Nikon D4 ends up with this kind of capability.

I think Nikon has succeeded in putting in enough unique features in the V1/J1 range that many people who originally thought it wasn't worth investing in this range, might be tempted to do so. 

It seems to me that the J1 and V1 cameras are Nikon's attempt to learn from Apple. Both models focus on simplicity of design and aesthetic beauty. They seem to also reflect Apple's view that if the product is good enough, people will be happy to pay a premium. Nikon needs to ensure that like Apple, their products not only look good, but also outperform other cameras in the same category.

Choices in compact cameras

I currently own the Ricoh GR Digital III as my sole compact camera. I have watched with interest the developments in compact cameras, including the so called mirrorless system cameras. No single brand or camera fulfills all that I want from a compact camera yet.

In the first category we have enthusiast compact cameras such as the Ricoh GR Digital III, the Lumix LX-5, the Canon G12 and the Nikon P7100. While all of these cameras are capable, the image quality offered by the small sensor is a limiting factor. In my experience, decent quality images are rarely possible above ISO 200.  The advantage of these cameras is that they are the only ones that are truly compact - I carry my GR Digital III with me all the time.

The next category is the micro-four-third. This category doesn't excite me very much due to several reasons. Firstly it seems that there is not much of a size advantage between this and the larger APS C sensor models. Secondly, the image quality isn't on the same level as of the APS C models.  The only model that is interesting is the Panasonic GH2 because of its video capabilities - however, the pricing of the GH2, and in general the micro-four-third models, is the third issue. There is no cost advantage to buying a micro-four-third as compared to the APS C models. 

The third category is the APS C sensor compact cameras such as the Sony NEX and Ricoh GXR M Mount. Between this category and the micro-four-thirds, I prefer this as it has the advantage of a larger sensor, better image quality, and also smaller magnification factor when using full frame lenses. A similar camera with a full frame sensor would have been even more interesting.

In the end though, if you are choosing between a DSLR and a compact system camera, you have to consider what it is that you are looking for. From a price performance ratio, DSLRs still have a big advantage. Just compare the price of a 50mm F1.4 lens and equivalent lens for micro-four-thirds or the APS C compact cameras - the DSLR world has higher quality lenses at cheaper prices. The compact system cameras have two advantages over DSLRs. The size advantage is there if you choose the right lens. The ability to use lenses from other mount systems - for instance Leica M - is an important feature for anyone who already owns these lenses.

Personally, I have decided to try the Sony NEX 5N model. I chose this over the Ricoh GXR model due to its better video capability and lower price. I think Ricoh could have just made a custom model with M-mount rather than their fancy interchangeable mount system - the cost might have been lower.

The Perfect Camera does not exist

My perfect camera is one that is small, fast, but has a full frame sensor, excellent low light shooting and high dynamic range, and supports interchangeable lenses. Is there such a camera? No.

After spending some time reviewing choices between compact cameras, micro-four-third cameras, APS-C SLRs, and full-frame SLRs, I have decided to stick with APS-C SLR for the time being as the best compromise between size and performance. The only drawback is lack of good affordable wide angle primes.

Worst time to buy camera gear in the UK?

I was comparing prices of some of the Nikon gear and found that on average list prices have gone up by 30% since Dec 2008. This is based on comparisons of certain items in the official Nikon UK price list.
Actual street prices have also gone up by around 20% on average.

This trend is not just true for Nikon, all camera gear prices show similar trends. The reason is of course the weak pound, which in turn reflects the state of the UK economy.

It seems that unless the pound gets stronger, the prices of lenses are not going to get much better. Camera prices do tend to drop immediately after a replacement model is announced; so if you want to buy the D700 nearer the £1535 price mark as in Dec 2008 (as opposed to its current price of £1740) - then perhaps you should wait until the replacement is announced, and buy it as soon as the price drops.

Nikon P7000

I am glad that Nikon decided to create the P7000. This indicates that Nikon is not entirely happy to give up the serious compact top slot to Canon and Panasonic. From the way P7000 is designed, you can tell that Nikon considers Canon to be the more serious competitor.

I personally like the P7000 design. Would have liked a faster lens, but if the performance of the sensor and the lens are good enough, then I am happy with the compromise, i.e., longer zoom ratio as opposed to faster lens. The P7000 seems to be aimed at photographers who want to use it as a candid street camera. The long zoom range will be very useful I suspect in getting close to people without intruding. The optical viewfinder seems to be very desired by such photographers, and given that add-on optical finders are so expensive, I am happy to settle for the one in the camera.

All in all, it seems that the P7000 is a great camera; it seems to be a reasonable compromise between price and features; only its performance remains to be seen, and ultimately this will matter more than mere specification. I have no reason to think that Nikon hasn't aimed for high performance, and the samples posted by DPreview look promising.

I hope to acquire one soon and then I will compare it to the Ricoh GR Digital III, which is my current compact camera.

Digital versus film photography

We all know the convenience of digital photography. It is hard to be a bad photographer with a medium that lets you immediately check whether the picture was good, and retry if necessary; and any flaws in the image can be tweaked subsequently very easily so that the final image is visually appealing and perfect.

Compared with this film photography is slow, and requires skill to get things right, because you can't check the results immediately. Even with good scanners, such as the Nikon Coolscan V, the quality of the scanned image is not a match for digital photographs from the latest generation of cameras.

So is film photography dead? Many of us hope that it isn't but will an ever diminishing market support an industry that is probably no longer profitable? Maybe we shall end up with a handful of film types, mainly B&W and color transparency, and a few labs that provide processing at a high cost. It is a prospect that is depressing but the world inexorably follows Darwinian evolution of the fittest, and the writing on the wall is clear even from a distance.

The digital revolution is a boon for the vendors, as it ensures that they can keep making us buy a new camera every year or two years, by tempting us with new capabilities. It is good that the technology is evolving rapidly, but the worst aspect of this is the continuous churn. The sensible amongst us will renew their equipment only when necessary, and not because they must get the latest and the greatest. But for those of us want to own the best, the best is an ever moving target.