Frederik is a photographer, blogger and youtuber living in Denmark in the Copenhagen region. Outdoor photography is the preference, but Frederik can also be found doing flash photography applied to product shoots and stills.
Back in the days when everyone shot 35mm film, you could get films with different ISO levels, say ISO100 or ISO400. You could actually by buying a different film change the ISO. Also, this gave rise to the term the exposure triangle consisting of shutter speed, aperture and ISO. But that was back in the film days. Today, when your sensor leaves the factory, the sensitivity to light is fixed. So no changes to ISO as we knew it from the film days. But turning up the ISO will give you images that look more exposed than images with lower ISO’s, so what is going on?
Film with ISO 400
Turn up the volume!
When you listen to radio and the signal gets bad with lots of noise, what do you do? Yes, you can turn up the volume, but that will both amplify the noise and the signal, so my guess is that you turn the knob for controlling the tuning, in order to get a better signal. Turning up the volume will not help.
So what is ISO in a digital camera? After the camera has taken the picture and the sensor has read the light, then the ISO is applied in the cameras internal post processing! It takes the signal and amplifies it as ordered by the ISO setting. The higher the setting, the more the amplification. But just like the old analogue radio, both the signal and noise is amplified.
That is why ISO is no longer part of the exposure, as it is applied after the exposure. The exposure triangle is now only aperture and shutter speed. Your sensor has the sensitivity it had when it left the factory.
What is it good for?
If you set your ISO to the cameras base ISO, typically ISO 100 or ISO 200, then you will get the cleanest images. As soon as you crank up the ISO, the price you pay is more noise and more grain. Luckily, most modern cameras have algorithms that are pretty good at separating noise from signal, so you can get good results at ISO 800, ISO 1600 and even ISO 3200 or higher. You can continue the work with optimising the image in post and get good results with even higher ISOs that that.
More modern cameras can go to higher ISO values than older ones. The reason being that the computing power in modern cameras has increased and hence there is capacity (“horse power”) to run advanced noise suppression algorithms in the camera. The better the noise suppression, the higher (meaningful) ISO values can be applied.
The reason why you would turn up the ISO is lack of light. It is a simple as that. Maybe you want to shoot something that moves very fast so you need to reduce the shutter speed? A high ISO may be the compromise you need to get images that are sufficiently exposed. Maybe you want to shoot at a very narrow aperture to get lots of (DOF)? That narrow aperture won’t let in much light, so ISO could help you out.
There is no free lunch when it comes to photography. It is one big pile of compromises. But subtle use of ISO may be just what helps you out when you lack a little bit of light. So give it a try and you will over time find out where the limits for your use of ISO subject to what you shoot.
A short definition of what Depth-of-Field in photography is…
Acceptable sharpness
Depth-of-fields (DOF) is the area (depth) in which subjects in view of your lens appear to be acceptably sharp. The DOF area closest to you is called the DOF near limit, and the other end the DOF far limit. Within that interval, subjects appear to be sharp.
If you have not tried to focus manually, I encourage you to try so. Flick the little switch on the front left of your camera (typically) from AF to M, and try to turn the focus ring manually. Notice how different parts of the scene becomes sharp as you turn the ring. You are actually “pushing” the focal plane back and forth when you turn the focus ring – the focal plane being where you as photographer decide the image is to be sharp, but there is an element of “forgiveness” prior and after the focal plane and that is the DOF.
DOF illustrated
I think of the DOF being around 1/3 prior to the focal plane (the focus point) and 2/3 after the focal plane, but this is not a technically correct way to see it, but if you like me just want to have a drivers license to what DOF is, then this is a good and operational way to think about DOF.
Your DOF depends on many factors such as the distance to the subject, the sensor size, most notably the aperture and the length of your lens. Most photographers work with the aperture to control the DOF, but you can also use the distance to the subject.
Macro photography
Macro photographers suffer from the fact that when you are super close to your subject, the DOF shrinks to almost noting, even if you pump up the Aperture to something crazy high – it won’t help, as the distance is so small that you get a paper thin DOF no matter what. Therefore many macro photographers use focus stacking, where you take several images and change the focus point, and then in post merge the sharp parts together to create an image with a larger DOF.
Portrait photography
Portrait photographers use a relatively small aperture to shrink the DOF so that the background becomes very blurred and hence does not take focus from the subject. You can also get this effect at a higher aperture (and hence DOF) if you just make sure that the distance from the subject to the background is by factors way bigger than the distance from the lens to the subject.
Although the name sounds very advanced and almost like something from a galaxy far far away, it is really very simple: to make the most of your dept-of-field (DOF).
Notice the “distance” in the term “hyperfocal distance” – it is all about the distance between your camera and the focus point. When you focus at the hyperfocal distance, everything between that point and to infinity is in focus. Or I should say, appears to be in focus. There is a lot of technical details here that I omit, but I want to give you a drivers license to shooting at the hyperfocal distance – not turn you into an engineer.
Your depth-of-field (DOF) is an interval before and after the focus point where things appear to be in focus. I normally think about it so that 1/3 of the depth-of-field (DOF) lies before the focus point, and 2/3rds lies after the focus point. This is not very accurate, but a good operational way to think about it. So when your focus point is so that the far end of the DOF just reaches infinity, then there is also a good part before the focus point that is in focus. If your hyperfocal distance for example is 10 meters away, then the space between the focus point and halfway back to you also appears to be in focus. In other words, only what is between you and 5 meters out will be out of focus. From 5 meters out and to infinity is in focus.
Calculations are not necessary
So should you calculate the (DOF)? You can if you want to, but what I do is to focus to infinity with manual focus, and then pull the focus point back towards me until infinity becomes out of focus, and then revert just a little bit until infinity becomes sharp again, and then I have the focus point hyper focal distance. If you have a mirrorless camera with focus peak highlights, this is a brilliant illustration of how your focus plane and the (DOF) works you can find the hyper focal distance using the method I just described, but supported by the focus peaking highlights.
Learning from old lenses…
On old lenses, there was markings showing the (DOF). The black dot just above the blue “11” shows that the lens is at f/11 aperture . The same blue color as the “11” is used for the (DOF) markings on the zoom ring. You can see that to the left, the blue mark is at infinity, and to the right the other blue mark is between 3 and 5, i.e. around 4, the precision is not that great. The focus point is between 5 meters and infinity (the tilted 8 to the left just above the black dot). The blue mark to the left is the far end of the (DOF) whereas the blue mark to the right is the near end of the (DOF).
DOF indicator on the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2
Is the lens at the hyper focal distance? Yes, it is as the far end of the DOF touches infinity. Had I focused closer, then infinity would be out of focus (which every portrait photographer knows), had I focused further away, I would have wasted DOF beyond infinity.
The distance is not linear
Also notice the distance scale: You can see it (in meters) top right is at 1.2 meters, then 1.5, 2, 3, 5 and infinity! So it is almost is if the distance “explodes” when you get beyond 5 meters, i.e. a very small turn on the focus ring gives a big jump in the distance. That is why it is vital that you get the far end of the DOF to touch infinity, because you then work with the part of the distance scale where you cover a lot of ground!
DOF calculator
If you put the above example into a DOF calculator (credit: Photopills) then you will get a hyperfocal distance of 7.42 meters, DOF near limit to the half of that and the DOF far limit to infinity. In this example we have got the most out of the DOF and only the distance from the camera and 3.7 meters out is out of focus.
DOF calculator from Photopills
Notice that the DOF depends on several factors, such as the sensor size, the aperture you shoot at, the focal length of your lens, distance to the subject etc. But no matter what DOF you are working with, the hyperfocal distance is the focus distance where you make the most of what you got.
I guess anyone can read the specification sheet for both the Nikon D700 and the Nikon D4 and come up with a list of differences. But another thing is working with both cameras side by side for an extended period of time. Then you get to know the differences from a real world experience. In this blog I want to share how it is to live and work with these two cameras, based on a few areas that I have selected that are important to me.
Introduction
The Nikon D4 is in the single digit line of Nikon cameras, meaning that Nikon calls this a flagship camera. It is a good as it gets basically. However, the camera is more than 10 years old and the original ask for 6000 USD is not dropped to a more manageable 1000 EUR on the used market. So you can get your hands on a pro level camera for a fraction of what a new one would set you back.
The D700 was made between 2008 and 2012, so it is older than the D4. It shows in many ways: the pixel count is lower, no video, etc. But the D700 is a legend, and many consider the combination of sensor and processing logic to be unique, actually so unique that Nikon never since has made a camera with color rendition and micro contrast as good as the D700. Also, the D700 can be had for a lot less than 1000 EUR, but the challenge is more to find a copy that is not too beaten up / has too many clicks on the clock, than to find an affordable copy.
Many consider the D700 a baby version of the D3, and believe that Nikon with the D700 made a mistake and produced a camera in the enthusiast lineup that came too close to their flagship cameras. Nikon learned their lesson, and subsequently made sure to have good distance between their flagship, pro-level and enthusiast level lineup.
Image quality
Especially skin tones are known to be unrivalled and unique for the D700. I leave it up to you to decide if you want to believe the magic and hype related to the D700. I have seen it periodically shine and give a 3D pop never seen with other cameras, and many of my landscape pictures look more like paintings than pictures. So yes, I can confirm there is something about the D700, but I am skeptical if all of the hype is justified.
I will say though that when it comes to B&W images, the D700 in my humble opinion has something special – the images are very clean and rich in contrast, far better than any other camera I have had the pleasure to use.
On the other side I find that the D4 makes mincemeat of the D700 when it comes to colors and color rendition – the D4 in my opinion is simply some of the best with rich saturated colors, where I find the D700 to be more pale or less saturated. This is up to personal preference and taste, but for me the D4 shines when it comes to colors.
In terms of the more technical or specs related differences, the D4 has both more pixel count and more dynamic range. I have produced large prints (100 cm times 70 cm) with the Nikon D700 with no problems, so I am a strong believer that 12MP is more than plenty also for large prints, when we are talking natural viewing distances. If you need to crop, then the D4 clearly has an advantage with its 16MP relative to the 12MP of the D700, and for wildlife I often find that I need to crop, and then the D700 clearly has an disadvantage. However, for many applications (landscape, street, products, candid), I find that 12 MP is more than plenty.
Many shy away from the D700 when they understand it “only” has 12MP. But I say: fear not, it is plenty! Unless you want to make very big prints that needs to be viewed very close up, or you want to crop your pictures heavily. If not, then 12MP is more than enough. And when you load your pictures into Lightroom or wherever you do your post processing, you will enjoy the smaller file size. And storage wise you will find that the D700 files take up less space on your hard-drive and backup storage facilities. So I will claim that the smaller pixel count makes living with the D700 somewhat easier than the D4.
Ergonomics and build quality
The D700 and D4 have significant differences in build quality. Even though the D700 is built very solid, the D4 takes it up a notch, and comes with what I call a built in battery grip. The D4 is also a very heavy camera body weighing almost 1.5 kilo, which paired with a heavy lens is a very heavy combo. If you don’t like a heavy and bulky camera, then you probably want to stay clear of both the D4 and the D700, but especially the D4.
Both cameras have great ergonomics and I am in general a fan of Nikons way to design their cameras and button layout so you do not get tired working with them for extended periods of time. One area where you will notice that these are older cameras is the rear screen, where both of them are fixed. No tilt of flip-out or anything. Fixed:
Nikon D700 to the left with a battery grip. Nikon D4 to the right. Notice the extra LCD screen on the D4 + the 2 joysticks, one top right next to the large rear LCD, another bottom right to the same LCD.
With the D700 you have the option to add a battery grip, which makes it – in terms of height and ergonomics – very similar to the D4. However, the D4 comes with 2 joysticks for moving the focus point around, with the D700 that only comes with the battery grip, in landscape mode you have to do with the command wheel. Some complaint that the joysticks on the D4 easily fall of, but I am so lucky to not have had this issue.
One area that buggers me senseless with the D700 is the lack of 100% viewfinder coverage. The D4 has 100%, but the D700 only has 95%. You may think that this is a small thing, but if you like me try to crop your images precisely when shooting only to learn that the camera added 5% more, then I think you will feel the annoyance of the additional 5%. Switching between the D4 and the D700, it always strikes me how much this little difference means to me in real life.
Auto ISO
I know it is a small thing, but with the D4 I can switch between setting the ISO myself and asking the camera to do it for me very easily. I hit the ISO button bottom left on the rear of the D4 while turning the front command dial. Then it flicks between auto-ISO and “manual” ISO. Not so on the D700 – here I have to go into the menu system to change this. I know it is a small thing and I know you can configure “my menu” to have the ISO on top of the list and have it assigned to a dedicated button, but I find that the D4 implementation is so much easier to work with and also here – like the viewfinder coverage – it always strikes me how much this little difference means to me in real life.
Card slots
One area that always causes a lot of debate is one or two card slots. The D700 to the left comes with one CF card and the D4 to the right has both a CF card slot and an XQD slot. Especially for wedding photographers but basically anybody that appreciates the philosophy of “no single point of failure”, the value of having 2 card slots cannot be exaggerated. You may be of the “I have never had a card failing on me”, but Murphy is alive and kicking and it is only a matter of time. There have been days when I came home from a shoot thinking that the content of the cards was far more valuable than the camera holding them. But of course up to you how important 2 card slots is!
Nikon D700 to the left with one CF card slot, Nikon D4 to the right with 2 card slots: One CF (1) and one QCD (2).
Live view
You may not use Live View much, but if you do, then this is one of the areas where the D4 shines relative to the D700. I think the Live View implementation on the D700 was one of the first implementations Nikon did, and it is a bit quirky. There is no dedicated Live View button and you have to select between two different Live View modes. A0nd the autofocus is slow when you opt for the “Tripod” mode, as it is called. You will quickly enjoy the Live View implementation on the D4 with a dedicated button.
What to choose?
If you are about to choose between the D4 and the D700, then you are in for a tough choice. Boiled down to one sentence? You choose the D700 with your heart and the D4 with your head. The D4 is a more modern camera, and although heavier, it is easier to work with. Personally I find that I shoot a lot more with the D4 than the D700, simply because it is a camera I find a lot easier to work with (100% view finder coverage, dedicated live-view button, easy AUTO ISO switch etc).
If you are in doubt, buying a good copy of a D700 will not set you back much – you can always get a very good price for a D700 due to its legend status, and then the price of owning it is only the difference between what you bought it for and what you sold it for. And even without being a top negotiator, I think you will find the gap to be small.
Normally you would expect a skilled photographer to deliver clean, well exposed images, but with intentional camera movement (ICM) the aim is to make the images look a bit more abstract by introducing a deliberate camera movement while the shutter is open.
There really are no rules when it comes to ICM and you can develop your own style and expression. The classic way of doing it however is to move the camera along lines in the subject, so that you emphasize these and blur details. For example, in a wood with tall trees you would move the camera up/down in a vertical movement, whereas a landscape image with a horizon, you want the movements to follow the horizon left to right or the other way round. You can also move the camera more freestyle, for example try to follow a wave as it comes to shore. The possibilities are infinite and you can really develop your own style and expression. In the example below I have moved the camera in circles to get the effect.
The way to do ICM is to make sure your shutter is open for say 1/2 to 2.0 seconds. You may want to go down to 1/10th or up to 5 seconds, but start with 1/2 to 2.0 second just to get you going.
You can do this by putting your camera in shutter priority mode and simply ask the camera to leave the shutter open as you see fit. The camera most likely will put the camera in base ISO (say 100) and minimize the aperture to whatever the lens allows, say f/22, but you may find that this will not do and the picture is over exposed. This could happen if your are shooting a sunset or a bright scene. In such cases an ND filter is needed. An ND filter is basically a pair of sunglasses you put in front of your lens to minimize the amount of light that gets through. I use a variable ND filter that takes between 3 and 11 (!) stops of light out of the equation.
Don’t be discouraged if you come home with a lot of images that are no good. This is only natural, also for experienced photographers. You may find that out of 2-300 images, there are only a few if any that works. Keep going and eventually you will succeed! Best of luck!
The answer is yes. However, there are a few things to be aware of, that can help your way into photography using YouTube as a teacher.
YouTube is a great pool of information about many things, also photography, but there is no guidance as how to use YouTube if you want to learn photography. In this blog post I share a few lessons learned from my own journey learning photography from scratch using YouTube. With a few awareness points, you can learn photography via YouTube both faster and more efficiently than what I did.
Know yourself
We all learn in different ways. Some like to read text, others to see pictures, yet others like practical exercises and hands-on experience. We learn in many different ways, and good school systems acknowledge this and make sure to cover different ways of learning.
YouTube obviously is a very visually oriented teacher, and only you know if this is a good way of learning in your case. If for example you know that your preferred way of taking in information is say via reading, you may want to vary the videos with blogs or other sources of information that presents the material in a different way. Many of the larger YouTube channels about photography also have a homepage with material and books available, often at a price, but it may be a good investment considering the time you may save .
Create your own structure
YouTube videos are often very specific. They compete with other videos about your attention, and to win that competition it is good to seek out a spot where others are not, and that tends to drive the content to be more and more specific. So overview and structure and helicopter view is not what you will find in the typical YouTube video. And it is difficult to know when you have covered all relevant ground to cover the basics of photography.
When you attend school there typically is a curriculum for the upcoming term. That tells you what you need to study, gives structure and also scopes what the final exam will be about. When you study on your own, you have to develop your own curriculum, otherwise you will be lost in the sea of information in the YouTube universe, and although you are making good progress, you lack some good yardsticks to measure your progress.
One way to make some structure is to narrow your searches for videos according to what type of photography has your interest. I know this is difficult when you are new to photography, but give it a shot still:
– Landscape photography
– Street photography
– Portrait photography
– Event photography (weddings etc)
– Product photography
– Abstract photography
– Architecture photography
– Wildlife photography, and so on…
Another dimension you can use bring some structure to your curriculum is to take the table of content from the manual of your camera! Yes, I know, this makes you want run away! But I am not asking you to read the manual (although it can be a good teacher), but just use the TOC as a guidance for your reading plan.
A third option is – yes I know it is old fashioned – to buy a book about the basics of photography. Joel Sartore has written a book that I find relatively easy to read: Photo Basics, published on National Geographic. Once you have read that book, you have a very good overview of the basics of photography and the TOC can be used to your YouTube searches to further deepen your knowledge.
Remember practice, practice and practice
It is tempting to binge watch YouTube videos in one long stream, and I did that as well. But remember to take a pause, to let the information sink in and for you to digest the information.
Secondly, it is important that you apply theory to practice and test what you have learned in real life. You think you know it when you understand it, but the practical appliance brings new dimensions to your knowledge and understanding. So don’t skip the “exercises” – apply what you have learned, and learn even more!
When you grow…
When you have been using YouTube for a while, you will find two things: (1) there are some YouTubers you like more than others and (2) suddenly you are thinking to yourself: I know this already! Both cases is a good sign that you have grown as a photographer and that you have learned a lot!
The few YouTubers that I enjoy may not be the same as those you have found or will find, but I share them anyhow to give you some search terms in case you are interested:
Jamie Windsor (very good perspective on things)
James Popsys (entertaining + you learn a lot)
Tony and Chelsea Northrup (basics and reviews)
Sean Tucker (street)
Steve Perry (wildlife)
Daniel Norton (flash especially)
Tech Gear Talk (reviews)
Omar Gonzales (Fuji + entertainment!)
These may not work for you, but then you will find others that do work for you.
Finally…
There will be good days and bad days. There will be days when you think “I shall never learn this!” – but don’t despair. Take a break. Go shoot some pictures instead, or do something else you enjoy.
Your brain needs time to relax and re-organize all the information you are feeding it, so see your down time as productive time in terms of processing and archiving all the useful information you are taking in.
With this, I wish you all the best on your journey to learn photography!
I guess anyone can read the specification sheet for both the Nikon D700 and the Nikon D750 and come up with a list of differences. But another thing is working with both cameras side by side for a long time. Then you get to know the differences from a real world experience. In this blog I want to share how it is to live and work with these two cameras, based on a few areas that I have selected as they mean a lot to me.
Nikon D750 to the left, D700 to the right. There is a reason why the Nikon D700 is mounted with a camera strap 3 times as wide as the one sitting on the D750…
The hype
The Nikon D750 is a much younger camera than the D700. It shows in many ways: the pixel count is higher, it does video, etc. But the D700 is a legend, and many consider the combination of sensor and processing logic to be unique, actually so unique that Nikon never since has made a camera with color rendition and micro contrast as good as the D700. Especially skin tones are known to be unrivalled and unique for the D700. I leave it up to you to decide if you want to believe the magic and hype related to the D700 – myself I have seen it periodically shine and have a 3D pop I have never seen with other cameras, and many of my landscape pictures look more like paintings than pictures, so yes, I can confirm there is something about the D700, but I am skeptical if all of the hype is justified.
Build quality
One of the things difficult to see from a spec sheet is the look and feel of a camera, and here the D700 and D750 are like night and day. Many say that the D700 is “built like they don’t make them anymore”, and I have to agree 100%. The D700 is – to use a cliché – built like a tank. A brick outhouse. You’ve heard the lingo. But it is. A Land Rover with a Range Rover on top. It is massive, made for endurance. If you don’t like a heavy camera and a bulky one too, then stay clear of the D700.
The D750 is more a camera like they build them today. It is more compact, lighter and has a much less solid feel to it. When you go from the D700 to the D750, you definitely feel like the D750 is more like plastic. Not that the D750 is of poor build quality – the D700 is just so much better. The grip on the D750 is deeper, but you quickly get used to the D700 if you – like me – have big hands.
Live view
You may not use Live View much, but if you do, then this is one of the areas where the D750 shines relative to the D700. I think the Live View implementation on the D700 was one of the first implementations Nikon did, and it is a bit quirky. There is no dedicated Live View button and you have to select between two different Live View modes. And the auto focus is slow when you opt for the “Tripod” mode, as it is called. Add to this that the D750 has a higher resolution rear LCD screen that tilts, and you will quickly enjoy the Live View implementation on the D750 with a dedicated button.
Nikon D750 to the left. Notice the tilt screen and the dedicated Live View button to the bottom right. The D700 has the vertical grip mounted, which of course does not make the weight difference between the two any less…
Pixel count
Many shy away from the D700 when they understand it “only” has 12MP. But I say: fear not, it is plenty! Unless you want to make very big prints that needs to be viewed very close up, or you want to crop your pictures heavily. If not, then 12MP is more than enough. And when you load your pictures into Lightroom or wherever you do your post processing, you will enjoy the smaller file size. And storage wise you will find that the D700 files take up less space on your hard-drive and backup storage facilities. So I will claim that the smaller pixel count makes living with the D700 much easier than the D750. And you will most likely never miss the 24MP resolution of the D750.
Viewfinder coverage
You may not think that the viewfinder coverage is a big thing, but to me it is, and actually one of the few areas where the D700 annoys me. I love that camera, but the fact that the frame is slightly bigger than what I see in the viewfinder is a nuisance. When I shoot, I frame very carefully according to the viewfinder and when I then get back home and open the file on my PC, I find it truly annoying to start my editing by cropping as I saw it in the viewfinder. The D750 does not have this issue.
Dynamic range
The D750 if notorious for its ability to do auto focus in low light situations – it literally sees in the dark. Truly impressive. The D700 not so much, and the dynamic range of the D700 is not as good as the D750. This may not be important to you – the ability to have both very bright and dark areas in the same frame is not important to all, and with exposure bracketing you can compensate a lot for lack of dynamic range. But I will say that in a low light situation – for example shooting in a restaurant without disturbing the guests with a big fat flash, my choice is the D750. Every time. Don’t believe the D750 has better dynamic range? Head over to DXO mark and see for yourself.
What to choose?
If you are about to choose between the D750 and the D700, then you are in for a tough choice. Boiled down to one sentence? You choose the D700 with your heart and the D750 with your head. The D750 is a more modern camera, lighter and easier to work with. But sometimes that is not what counts. Love conquers all, as they say.
If you heard that soft light is better than hard light, it is likely that statement came from a portrait photographer. Soft light is in general perceived as giving a more flattering look, where the light wraps gently around the subject.
But what is soft light? Soft light is light where the transition from bright to dark happens gradually, i.e. there is a lot of mid tones in the transition zones. Take a look at this pencil that I placed in my window space on an overcast day:
On a cloudy day, the sunlight is made into a massive light source as the light is spread across the vast area of clouds. In other words, the light source is huge! Notice the shadow at the tip of the pen? It is hardly there. You see a shadow where the pen rests upon the AirPod charging case, but the rest of the shadow is one big zone of tones of grey.
Now look at the next example, where I placed the pen under a reading lamp. A light source much smaller than the light from the clouds:
Suddenly you can now clearly see the shadow of the tip of the pen. If you look carefully, there still is a bit of grey zones where the white from the case transitions into the dark of the shade, but it happens much more abruptly than in the former example. The reading lamp as light source is simply much smaller.
Finally, the most harsh and brutal hard light I could think of: a flash held some distance from the subject with no diffusion at all! The bare bone flash activated here – you can see the flash light reflected in the yellow of the pen:
Notice the reflection of the flashlight on the pen.
In this final example, the transition from light case to shadow from the pen happens almost from one pixel to the next. Okay, maybe not so suddenly, but I hope the difference is clear.
It all comes down to the size of the light source, relative to the size of the subject. The bigger the light source, the softer the light.
So what should you use? As you may have guessed, my annoying answer is: it depends. Yes, for portrait photography you probably want to show the more flattering side of your subject and use flattering light. But hard light works fine as an artistic expression or to simulate a sunny day with no clouds at high noon. So use the softness of the light as a tool in your toolbox and use it deliberately, instead of just saying “soft light is the only light that works”.
Here at the brink of 2021, Nikon offers the enthusiast photographer more options than ever before. This is both wonderful and frustrating, as the obvious choice seems harder to find as the number of options increases. And there are no simple answers unfortunately, it all seems to come back to the classic counter question: “it depends…”. In this post I will try to distill the options Nikon offers in the 24MP range – typically aimed at the serious enthusiast and/or the freelance photographer.
On my YouTube channel I am a big ambassador for the Nikon D700, a classic and legendary DSLR that although “only” offering 12MP is probably one of the best DSLRs ever made for the enthusiast photographer. As it is no longer in production, it is only available used for around 400 EUR. This camera in terms of value is probably one of the best cameras for the enthusiast. However, many are not comfortable with the 12MP “only” and it seems like the camera producers center around 24MP as the sensor resolution for enthusiasts. If we go up higher to 48MP as found in the D850 or the Z7, then we are more into the professional segment, so in this post I will stick to the Z6, D750 and the D780 as they are all in the 24MP range.
The D750 is the oldest of the 3, but still today a very capable camera. The video specs are not up to what a modern hybrid camera can offer, but if you are into stills only, this can actually be an advantage as you are not paying for features you will not be using. The ergonomics of the D750 is excellent as we know it from Nikon, the menu systems are well organized and intuitive and the image quality is still today excellent. The body only price is around 1500 USD here in December 2020, but black Friday deals or other kinds of offerings can probably get the price even further down. And the camera body has a built in auto focus motor, meaning that you have access to a huge amount of used AF Nikkor glass available on e-bay and the like. In terms of value, the D750 is hard to beat when talking stills only.
The Z6 was the first mirrorless from Nikon, and they did their homework well and hit the mark pretty well with this first generation mirrorless camera. It is known to be a very good all round camera that does most things well, both stills and video. The critique of the camera was primarily that it only has one card slot and that there is no option to add a vertical grip, as the contacts are missing. This was fixed in the Z6 mark II, which in addition to fixing these shortcomings also added more computing power to the camera by adding an EXPEED processor. The introduction of the Z6 II gave rise to a price drop on the Z6, and the Z6 is around 1600 USD with an FTZ adaptor whereas the Z6 II is a 1000 USD more expensive than that. So if you are not nervous about SD cards failing and not planning to use a vertical grip, the original Z6 seems the value choice of the two. And both of them have in-body image stabilization (IBIS) to help you avoid camera shake when you need to keep the shutter open for an extended period of time.
The big disadvantage of going mirrorless is the fact that Nikon changed the lens mount system, so that is is no longer compatible with the notorious F-mount system. The motivation for this move yielding a shorter flange distance is – other than giving the IBIS room to work – that it gives new options for designing simpler and better performing lenses. It quickly gets technical, but that is the gist of it after reading Nikons explanation.
You have to buy an FTZ adapter, that can be had for around 100 USD when you buy it together with the camera body. But, there is a big but: The adapter does NOT have an AF motor, nor does the Z6 camera body, meaning that all the Nikkor AF vintage glass is now suddenly manual focus. This is where things to get complicated in terms of choosing between mirrorless or DSLR: The Z6 cuts you off from using mechanical auto focus on a lot of good vintage glass. And mind you that the glass that fits the new Z6 mount is expensive. You may be able to make a good deal if you buy a kit zoom lens together with the camera, but building your lens portfolio after that is VERY expensive relative to the DSLR options.
The Nikon D780 seems to try to bridge between the two worlds described above. It is a merger of the Z6 and the D750, so that in Live View mode, the camera is very similar to the Z6, whereas shooting via the viewfinder is very similar to the D750. So you get the best of both worlds, and maintain access to vintage glass with mechanical auto focus. And price wise the body alone is around 2300 USD, and hence significantly more expensive than the Z6, but that money could easily be saved when building (or re-using) a lens portfolio.
So what to choose as an enthusiast? “It depends…” – the most annoying answer of all, but unfortunately it is true.
The first thing I would ask myself in choosing between the 3 is: How important is video? One area where the cameras get better and better is video capability and if video is important to you, the D750 is struggling. But also think about how demanding your video requirements are – a GoPro next to your D750 could be a solution? Or maybe 1080p is all you need? Anyway, the more demanding your video requirements are, the less good and option the D750 is.
The second thing I would ask is: How important is auto focus? If you shoot things that are moving fast (sports and wildlife), then using vintage AF glass on a Z6 is a no go. You either have to buy F-mount glass with built in motors (AF-S) or go for glass that fits the new Z-mount directly. If you are on a budget and auto focus is important, your cheapest option is to go for the D750/D780 with vintage AF glass. But again, if face detection and eye recognition is important because you shoot a lot of portraits, then you have to use the D780 in Live View mode or go for the Z6. If auto focus is not important to you, then you are in luck: the Z6 will offer you the option to use cheap vintage glass via the FTZ adaptor and you will get focus peak assistance to help you obtain focus precisely and with great illustration of the focal plane.
The third thing I would ask is: How much vintage glass have I got to re-use? If you have a large portfolio of Nikkor vintage glass, and a good deal of this is with mechanical AF, then you can protect that investment with the D750 or the D780. Provided of course that you love your glass and want to continue to use if. If you are more meh-he, then the better option may be to sell your glass and go for the mirrorless Z6 or Z6 II. Your experience from building a lens portfolio then comes in handy, so you have a more focused mind when building your new portfolio.
What have I chosen to do? I am still with my D750. I shoot video on a Sony A7 RII so I have no need for better video capability currently. And the D750 with the mechanical AF motor built in, makes my collection of Nikkor vintage glass a joy to use. And as I seldom shoot anything fast moving, my auto focus requirements are all solved using single point focus. But mind you that this is what works for me given my situation and what I shoot – yours is different I am sure, so what fits me surely is no guarantee to fit you.
Thank you for reading this far! Comments are more than welcome!
One of the things I love about Nikon is the vast amount of cheap vintage glass that is out there on e-bay, plus their backwards compatibility – all the way back to 1950 or thereabout. Than means that most of the Nikon glass that they have produced since back then, can be used on a modern Nikon camera. And if you don’t like Nikon camera bodies, you can buy an adapter to fit the glass on the camera body of your preference.
Back in the film days full frame (FF) was the standard, as it was 35 mm film and not a digital sensor that sat in the cameras. That changed during the 1980’s and later, so that most cameras today have a digital image sensor. And for starters the digital sensor had the same size as the negative on a film – approximately 35 mm. What also changed was the amount of available sensor sizes. The so called APS-C and other reduced formats were introduced, along with new lenses. The advantage being that it was possible make lighter and cheaper glass, as the light would have to cover a smaller sensor. Although being smaller, the APS-C sensors could easily cram say 24 MP into the sensor despite the reduced size and hence a new fan base was created – people who do not want to carry heavy glass but on the other hand do not like the idea of reducing the resolution of the sensor.
Nikon made the APS-C cameras so that they used the same mount – the so called F-mount. That means that you can mount glass designed for APS-C on a full frame camera, and the other way around: mount full frame (FF) glass on a APS-C camera. It is the latter case I want to explore in this post, to see what happens.
In the best of worlds I would have shot the test shots with two Nikon cameras, say the D700 (full frame) and the D7500 (APS-C) or the D5600 (APS-C), but I lost my D7500 in a salt water accident and I have sold my D5600 to finance new gear, so I simply do not have a Nikon APS-C camera anymore. Luckily, I do have a Fuji X-T3 camera, which has an APS-C sensor size. And with an adaptor from K&F concept, I can mount the full frame lens on the Fuji camera:
Fuji X-T3 with a K&F adaptor to allow the Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 to be mounted
The disadvantage is that I now have to focus manually, and that the camera cannot control the aperture so I have to set the aperture on the lens itself. Further, the EXIF information that I get with the picture does not show the aperture anymore, as the lens and the camera cannot “talk” to each other – it is a dumb adapter. But for the purpose of this test, it is no big issue.
I am testing here with a wide lens, the Nikon 24mm f/2.8, and first I want to show you the picture taken on the Nikon D700 full frame body. The subject here is a little clay figure and I have put some items on the table to give some sense of the depth in the picture:
Nikon 24mm f/2.8 at ISO 400 f/2.8 – full frame sensorNikon 24mm f/2.8 at ISO 400 f/2.8 – cropped sensor
The second picture is taken on the Fuji X-T3 using the same lens with the adapter shown previously. As you can see, it seems like the little figure on the table has moved much closer and the frame is much less wide. For example, you cannot see the door to the right anymore and the stands to the right are almost gone.
This is known as the crop factor. When you use full frame glass on an APS-C sensor, then the picture is cropped because the sensor only uses the center part of the light from the glass.
The crop factor is typically 1.5 (for Cannon I believe it is closer to 1.6), and shooting with a 24 mm FF lens on an APS-C sensor as I have here, is the equivalent of shooting with a 36mm lens on a FF sensor. That explains why the frame is less wide and the subject appears closer.
Some say the crop factor is also to be applied to the aperture, so that the 24 mm f/2.8 is actually a 36 mm f/4. Below I have the two shots next to each other in Lightroom, where I have zoomed in on the FF version to the right, so that the clay figure has roughly same size. And then I have put some small lights that I normally use to test bokeh, to see if the full frame version would yield more background blur than the APS-C one. As far as I can tell, they are very similar:
The reason could be that f/2.8 and f/4 are both very wide apertures where the level of background blur does not change much, but from this test alone, I cannot conclude that you need to apply the crop factor also to the aperture to achieve equivalence.
Thank you for reading this far! Please don’t hesitate to leave a comment below or click the like button!
What also changed was the amount of available sensor sizes. The so called APS-C and other reduced formats were introduced, along with new lenses. The advantage being that it was possible make lighter and cheaper glass, as the light would have to cover a smaller sensor. Although being smaller, the APS-C sensors could easily cram say 24 MP into the sensor despite the reduced size and hence a new fan base was created – people who do not want to carry heavy glass but on the other hand do not like the idea of reducing the resolution of the sensor.
