Ming Thein on the Nikon Df

While not a good writeup as test reports go, Ming's report is as mordant as it is crisp. His main concerns are are with the camera's ham-fisted ergonomics:

“The problem is, there’s a lot of bad, too. Most of it is a comfort/ ergonomic problem: the vestigial grip is simply too small to be useful in supporting the camera, and too large to allow you a flat-fingered grip in the same way you’d use a mechanical Nikon. (Not having a film winding lever to nestle your thumb in on the back doesn’t help, either.) The camera itself is too physically large to be gripped in this way; the shutter position is too high/ flat and uncomfortable to use for any period of time except with the very smallest (think pancake, or 50/1.8) of lenses. The shape of the grip just makes my hands cramp into a claw, and various protrusions dig painfully into my digits – I may well have odd-shaped hands, but given how ‘right’ previous Nikons felt to me, I was surprised by how physically uncomfortable it was to use. On top of that, the strap lugs are poorly positioned: the right side one digs into your fingers. And here I was thinking only Olympus made this mistake.”
— http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/12/24/review-2013-nikon-df/

And I tend to agree. On the surface, the Df pulls at heart strings. On the surface it looks like an older Nikon camera. But it is all on the surface. Older Nikons were lighter and much smaller. They had great viewfinders. The Df is merely the smallest full frame 35mm digital camera that Nikon make. Volume-wise, it is nearly twice the size of a Nikon FE or FM. Despite this, it sports an F3-sized grip and a chintzy viewfinder.

Complaints regarding haptics and ergonomics are real. The Sony ILCE-7r, which is no my go-to digital camera for still life, is designed for the young photographer who never has experienced cameras with good ergonomics, controls, and immediate feedback. But such is life when modern photography is driven not by photographic purpose but by market share. Outside of larger format backs, specialised cameras do NOT exist today. Each one has to pack all the goodies in. And, when the driving force behind pricing and construction is cost/performance ratios, specialised cameras may not return. 

Here's to hoping that things will change.

Not all pixels are created equal: Nikon D610 vs. Sigma DP2 Merrill

DPReview member, Dogonit, demonstrates quite clearly how the 800$ Sigma pulls out more information from the same low ISO exposure than the twice-expensive Nikon D610.

“NOT ALL PIXELS ARE CREATED EQUAL: The Foveon sensor in the Sigma and the Bayer-type sensor in the Nikon are very, very, VERY VERY VERY different beasts. When Sigma claims a 48-Megapixel sensor it’s an overstatement, but one that’s based, at least partially, in comparative reality. The Foveon sensor does indeed have 48 Megapixels! They are just stacked over top of each other, like how film is made. The RGB sensors are translucent, so that the sensor takes a red, a green, and a blue reading for every pixel it ends up rendering, which comes out the other end as a 16 Megapixel image. How is this significant? Well, consider how a Bayer sensor works. The D610 is listed as a 24 Megapixel sensor. Does is have 24 Megapixels? Yes, BUT...each of these pixels picks up only red, green OR blue information. The Bayer filter then takes that information, calculates probable values based on averages from neighboring sensors, and estimates what each pixel’s color should be. What comes out the other end? A 24MP image, but it’s not really a 24MP image because it hasn’t really gathered full 24 Megapixels of Red, Green and Blue data; it’s captured somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 Megapixels (because there aren’t equal numbers of R, G, B pixels - there are far more Green pixels to record information). If you don’t understand this simplified explanation I encourage you to read more technical articles that explain this whole thing in detail. I assure you though that this is an accurate representation of what’s going on with each of these sensors. What I’m getting at is this: Don’t cry foul when Sigma claims 48 Megapixels. Nikon and Sigma are both over-representing their sensors in terms of the data it collects vs. the final output.”
— http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3590833#forum-post-52699306

And I agree. But then, you can count me in with those that feel the next logical step is 56 megapixels in a 35mm FF digital camera. 

Sony a7r shutter vibration seismometer test

Before the Coffee has posted a tireless shutter shock comparison that faces off the Nikon D3, the Sony NEX7, and the Sony a7r. The conclusion is as follows:

“Duration of vibration is greatest for the A7R over the D3 and NEX-7. This confirms what we already know; the shutter has to close, open, close and then open.
Intensity of vibration in the A7R is about the same as a DSLR but the A7R dissipates the vibration faster than the D3. I am pleased to see that the A7R is not off-the-charts in shutter vibration. It will probably impact image quality at high zooms but most of my shooting will be 100mm or less. For those that like above 100mm, it would be great if a firmware update for the A7R would allow us to raise the shutter into position prior to exposure, much like mirror lock-up.”

I have found no problem with shutter shock for strobe photography. Shutter lag and shock are high on the a7r and can be expected to exert influence over the final image in slow exposure photographs.

Again, here are my thoughts about the a7r.

It seems EVF is accepted now by OVF loyalists...

“It seems EVF is accepted now by OVF loyalists...”
— http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3587638

Misguided as the above OP is, the question is interesting. Modern EVFs are getting better. What holds them back is resolution in comparison to OVFs is contrast, update speed, lag, and the constant necessity to switch on and off. In my words, the EVF introduces layers of psychotic breaks between the image and the photographer, from which all but the most kludgy optical solutions are free.

Interestingly, the DPReview OP links to the following unrelated Soundimageplus article to prove his or her assumptions. 

“I walk around with this thing and have to do a double take when I realise that it’s got a sensor the same size as the D800E I used for over a year. The EVF is beautiful to work with and the ergonomics are very photographer friendly.”
— http://soundimageplus.blogspot.be/2013/12/soundimageplus-camera-of-year-sony-a7r.html

The Sony a7r's EVF is large, bright, and contrasty. Like all EVFs, however, it is prone to lag, to high amounts of noise, not to mention pixelation when juxtaposed to even a cheap OVF. The latter makes no adjustments for your eyes while the former attempts to mimic the eye by normalising the output between dark and light scenes. Thus your eye must adjust to not only ambient light changes, but also to EVF normalisation. 

Those among other reasons are why I prefer to use the a7r for the steady and slow rhythm of still life and engagement photography, two genres to which the EVF is suited. In fact, the a7r is a far better still life camera than is my D800. Via the use of adapters, it will completely replace the D800 for the smattering of fair-weather landscape photography I do.

It is a fine photo-recording machine. However, I am quite firm in my opinion that it is neither ergonomically nor haptically a well designed camera. Sony is the harbinger of things to come, not the Messiah. 

Perhaps to the fast-travelling internet it is. Here, the world is riddled with choice-funnelling, anchor-less arguments, and provocative lead-in statements.

In the logical fallacy-loving internet, yes, the EVF may well be accepted by OVF loyalists. Here in the real world, it is extremely useful for certain types of photography. But then, so is the OVF. And neither can replace the other.