In the last several months, I’ve had a fair number of changes to my equipment collection.

When I acquire something new, I like to write about it, whether it’s a “keeper” or not.  We’ve talked most recently on these pages about the Fuji X Pro 1. Given some new developments involving the technology surrounding that camera, there will be more to say.  Now however, I want to talk about a camera acquisition I also have alluded to recently, the Nikon D600.

I acquired this device shortly before the X Pro 1, and was shooting it extensively up to the point where the Fuji arrived.  As the Fuji was the older camera, I decided it would be more appropriate to  offer my comments on that camera first, as I was already late in the game.

Now, on to the D600.

The D600 is closely related to previous Nikon DSLR designs, particularly to the D7000.  Its body design follows a pattern seen in that “serious prosumer” camera bodies that Nikon has put out over the years.  Happily, the specifications keep improving with each generation, to a point where they have become very credible professional tools on their own; less robust perhaps than the D800 or D4, but more than adequate for fairly heavy use.  Now I am a somewhat leisurely landscape photographer, who will not be climbing in the Himalayas, or repelling off some cliff in the Amazon Basin. For me, these cameras are a nice combination of ruggedness, yet with reasonable weight.

Perhaps the most important new feature on the body of the D600 is a locking button on the mode dial on the left upper top.  This eliminates one of my main objections to that control style, vs. the three or four button knob  in that location on the D700/800/D4 bodies.   Every so often I will shoot with for instance, my D7000, only to find the mode dial has moved either to “program”, or to full manual; the latter setting particularly screwing up the exposure.  With the D600, this should no longer happen.

There also some changes to the video controls on the camera, which are admittedly less interesting to me.  When compared to the D7000, the D600 body is “puffed up” by about 10% visually.  All of the good things about the earlier camera have been retained (and I really enjoy that earlier camera).

There are certainly some wonderful websites such as DPreview, where you can read an in-depth description of the camera functions, and menus.  As always, I hope to convey to you the experiences of an “average” user and how the cameras features impact my photography.

I have had a somewhat jaded approach to this camera.  I admit being somewhat thrilled, but slightly intimidated, by the quality the sensor and its high-resolution.  I’ve discussed here before that I have a less than robust collection of FX appropriate lenses.  Other than some prime lenses, I own a 17-35 mm, f2.8, as well as the 70-200 mm f2.8.  My best midrange zoom seemed to be a Tokina 28-80 ATX f2.8, which has not always been well reviewed but I always thought was quite sharp, at least on DX.  I began to consider purchase of some serious glass, perhaps starting with the Nikkor 24 -70 mm F2.8.  I looked through my lens collection to see what I wasn’t using, and could sell to fund this expensive purchase.  The Tokina seemed a likely candidate for a quick eBay sale and I began to look for the box and packing materials.

But then it occurred to me that just maybe, I ought to consider shooting the D600 with the Tokina lens.

This particular lens, out of production now, is roughly as massive and heavy as the legendary Nikkor 28-70 mm F2 .8.  The lens is beautifully finished with a black crinkle surface.  Over the years its weight and size have tended to relegated to my storage closet as I have many DX lenses that seemed as sharp… and were a lot lighter.  Nonetheless, I figured I ought to at least give it a try before selling it.  I mounted the lens on the D600 and went hiking (with a tripod) in nearby Nescopeck State Park.

All I can say is wow!  To my eye, this is a very fine FX lens, and is extraordinarily well matched to the 24-megapixel Nikon sensor.  Contrast and detail are outstanding even at the edges of the frame.  I say this, even after shooting the extraordinary 60 mm Fuji “X” lens.  I’m not it selling it now.

I shot the 17-35 mm lens which is certainly excellent, though not quite so clear edge to edge.  It’s still a wonderful optic, and to me it should certainly not be discarded on acquisition of the D600/800.  The 70 – 200 mm VR lens (the first version) also to my eye looks fine, very sharp in the center and only slightly less so at the edges. Generally with a zoom of that range, I don’t care about the little vingnetting described by reviewers (which is easily corrected on processing), or whether the corners are absolutely sharp (version 2 of that lens is said to be better optimized for FX).  For now I see no reason to upgrade to the newer version.  That having been said, the main problem with all of these lenses is that they are seriously large and bulky.  You’ll need a serious backpack to carry good FX glass, plus a tripod for great remote landscape photography.

There is another option. With the Nikon primes I own, the D 600 is wonderful.  Shooting for instance with one of the excellent 50 mm Nikkors, is a delight.  A handful of primes would seriously reduce what you would carry on your back.

I did acquire with a camera the “kit lens” the Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR lens.  This is in fact a fairly reasonably sized midrange zoom with image stabilization.  I’m not a lens snob, and I’d hoped this lens would be similar to the 16 – 85 mm VR DX glass, which is essentially parked on my D7000 and is quite sharp and contrasty.  Unfortunately at least my copy of the lens was lackluster at best, and I returned it. Interestingly, the little Nikkor 28-70 f3.5 I wrote about here, looks better to my eye on the D 600, than the newer lens.

I shot some comparison photos as is de rigueur for these camera tests.  I shot my usual test subjects with the D700, the D600, both with a Nikkor 50 mm f1 .8, and compared them to the X Pro 1 with its 35 mm f1 .4, (which on DX has nearly the same field of view)both at F 5.6.  For the record, I developed them using the same raw developer (which currently cannot currently be named) which is said to be the best developer in particular for the Fuji files and also great for Nikons.  I did not always use standard settings, but attempted to best optimize each image.

Here’s 100% crop of images I shot at ISO 320 on the X Pro 1 and the D 600

Here’s a set at ISO 3200, including shots from the D 700:

In either the low or high ISO images, I think it’s clear that the Nikon has an advantage in resolution.

I think the high ISO noise rankings (higher is better) would be D 600 > X Pro 1 > D 700.

I’m impressed with the Fuji.  The difference in resolution between it and the Nikon seems clearly less than the eight megapixels the sensor sizes would suggest.  This is probably the cause of the removal of the anti-aliasing filter on Fuji.  Again, I think the high ISO images suggest that the D600 is better than the Fuji, which is slightly better than the D700.  That camera, even allowing for the different image magnification of its smaller files at 100%, clearly has less resolution, and noise suppression than the other two.  It’s amazing how good these imagers are getting.

I’m actually rather impressed that the Fuji does not lose ground to the Nikon D600 as the ISO numbers increase.  The newer Nikon in my mind however, is a clear winner here.

I should also mention that in playing with the files, the dynamic range of the camera seems very high.  This camera appears to have some of the same abilities to lift the shadows as its older sibling the D7000.  It also does a very nice job at highlight detail retention.  In this regard it feels almost like my old Fuji S5 pro.  On a raw image, you can dial back what appears to be a blown out sky or snowfield, and find that there is significant detail available.

One issue with this camera has to do with the autofocus.  There been reports that the performance of the autofocus on this camera is mediocre, compared to cameras higher up in the Nikon line.  To me the autofocus always functioned well, but my main frustration was the rather restricted area of autofocus points in the viewfinder.  This is very frustrating for landscaping.  It can be very difficult to bring a focus point for instance on a spot in the periphery of the image.  Then I realized that a simple solution for this is to move to “live view” while, particularly on a tripod, which brings to bear the camera’s very adequate contrast detection autofocus system which can cover the entire frame.  Problem largely solved.

One other issue I think deserves discussion.  Some very thoughtful photographers have written about the importance of using careful shot discipline, if we’re to extract all of the high-resolution of these devices.  As the megapixels increase, it seems logical that we may increasingly rely on camera stabilization devices, whether physical or electronic, in order to prevent motion blur.  The larger mirrors in the full-frame digital SLRs such as the D600 can cause issues with camera motion when they swing up and out-of-the-way on shutter activation.

Also with FX Nikon cameras is that the few image stabilized lenses available tend to be rather large and not particularly fun to carry around ( excepting the little  Nikkor 28-70).I did do some free hand shooting with the D 600 and noted that it was fairly difficult at times, to prevent motion blur, unless one used at least a monopod. Now I don’t shoot thousands of frames every day, and there are pro shooters who are so steady, and have such good technique, that this may not be a problem for them.  For me however, I need to be careful.

For these reasons, I believe that mirrorless devices such as G series Panasonics, and the Fuji X cameras, which are smaller than full-frame DSLRs and offer lenses with image stabilization, will likely be my choice for free-hand shooting.    I find, for instance, that the mirrorless cameras are much more forgiving in this setting.  I get much less motion blur with even the non-stabilized 60 mm lens (90 mm equivalent) on the X Pro 1 then I do with shorter lenses on the D 600.

At any rate, that Nikon D600 is a wonderful camera and will add significantly to most shooters capabilities, both out in the woods, on the street, and in challenging low light situations.  For me the camera’s weatherproofing makes it a natural choice for use when it’s raining and snowing, and its small size and lightweight but sturdy build make it a good companion out in the wilds.  The only disadvantage of the FX format is the need for larger lenses, and some sort of camera stabilization.

When you comply with its needs however, the results are wonderful.

A Pretty Good Little Lens.

I think we all understand the advantages of larger camera imagers. Really we do. On SLRs, “full frame” imagers the size of 35mm film (FX imagers in Nikon speak) can provide cleaner output particularly at high ISO settings.  They allow wide angle, short focal length lenses to have their full field of view. They allow us the shallow depth of field many photographers, particularly those shooting portraits, tend to desire.

Much is also written about the subjective quality of images produced by larger chips.

For landscape photographers, shooting DSLRs, these characteristics are less compelling.  Most of the time, we are looking for lenses with a larger depth of field so that more of the scenery we are shooting is in focus. The ability to go wide is not unappreciated, but there are many “DX” lenses that offer a wide field of view.

The burden of full-frame imagers includes larger, heavier lenses which need to be toted around in order to obtain the full measure of quality the sensor can produce. These larger lenses tend to be more expensive.  The cost of a Nikkor 24-70 mm f 2.8, arguably the finest mid-range zoom offered by that manufacturer, is roughly $1900 US, at B+H Photo as I write this.  Price aside, this big, beautiful optic weighs almost 2 pounds. This is significantly more than the weight of the D700 to which it would be attached.

Because of these issues, over the years, I have developed several workarounds for using my full-frame cameras in the field.

The first work around is that I don’t actually use FX very much for landscape work.  My D7000 body for instance, is more compact and has more resolution.  The smaller DX sensor utilizes lenses that are lighter and less expensive.  I think in particular of my Tamron 17-50 mm f2.8, or my Nikkor 16-85 mm f3.5 both of which are excellent landscape choices.

The second work around is my use of “prime” lenses when I do venture out with full-frame. This appeals to both my lazy, and my cheap side, as these lenses tend to be inexpensive and light.  They also tend to be very high quality, especially at the modest price point at which they can be acquired.  Their small size and weight has made the D 700 very manageable for hiking.  There is however the need to carry multiple lenses, and the problem of changing them in the field, sometimes during conditions that might tend to foul the sensor.

So I’ve been looking for a small FX capable lens, a midrange zoom, of reasonable quality, but small and light enough to keep things manageable on the trail.  Preferably, it should be a modest cost.  And I think I’ve found it.

The Nikkor 28 – 70 mm F3 .5 is a small AF-D lens made in the 1990s.  It is an old school design, of polycarbonate construction, with a metal lens mount, but like many of the AF-D lens line of the time, well made and finished.  It is very reminiscent of my Nikkor 50 mm f1.8, and my 85 mm f1.8 in terms of build quality.  It is slightly smaller in size compared to the latter.

I became interested in the lens when I saw it on multiple websites reviewed quite favorably, especially given its astounding price point.  (I bought mine for roughly $70.00 on EBay).

Now I love a deal..  For $70.00 I’m definitely willing to “take a flier” and see whether it could be a useful addition to my photo kit.

I try hard not to be a “lens snob”.  Certainly there is a minimal quality level that a useful lens has to meet.  I believe that the right scene, the right set up, and the right shooting technique, tend to trump ultimate lens quality.  If the optic has reasonable center and peripheral frame sharpness, with decent contrast, it will not be the reason your photographs sucks. You may have to shoot at F5-F8 for the lens to perform well, but hell I tend to do that anyway, even with better glass.

I took the lens with me this week on several hikes.  I was easily able to carry the D700, with the zoom attached in my small camera bag.  It focuses using a screw drive, and so it requires one of a higher-end Nikon bodies for it to properly auto focus.  On the D700, it focused quite quickly and accurately.

One anachronism about this lens is its rotating front element.  This means that the front of the lens spins with the focus ring. This makes the use of a polarizing filter somewhat awkward in that one has to constantly readjust the filter every time the focus is changed by the photographer, or by the autofocus.  The lens is also unusual in that it tends to shrink and grow with both with zooming and focusing.

An advantage regarding filters on the 28-70 mm is that they are only 52 mm in diameter and thus considerably cheaper than the 77 mm filters on the pro-level lenses.  The rotating front element problem can be dealt with by focusing manually (so nothing moves without your permission) and carefully adjusting the filter to maximize the colors in the viewfinder.  I quickly got used to this technique.

So for the ultimate issue… what is the quality of this $70.00 lens? Actually, it’s quite good.  Obviously an f3.5 lens is not as “fast” as more extravagant models.  For a landscape photographer used to shooting in a reasonable light and on a tripod, this is not much of an impediment.  I find that the optical quality lens is quite good.  I’ve included in this article some sample images shot with this lens both in the field and indoors.

By way of comparison I offer the same image acquired with a similar vintage Nikkor 50 mm f1.8 which is well known to be sharp, and have low distortion.  I shot both at 50 mm and f 5.0 with the camera bench mounted. All processing was the same.  Here is 100% magnification of a peripheral portion of the scene shot.  I think that you can see the differences between these two lenses are fairly minimal.

Now I have no doubt that bigger pro-level Nikkor glass may be better quality, but the tradeoffs of weight and bulk mean that this diminutive midrange zoom is rather useful in its own way.

One last issue.  Apparently this lens is someone obscure.  When I developed photos in Camera Raw shot with the lens, the automatic lens correction defaults to the 70-200mm f2.8 settings. On the PTL Lens plug in for Photoshop, the corrections ar based on a Sigma 28-70mm f2.8. I have no idea whether this is deliberate or accidental, but the lens is not mentioned on the  former software’s Nikon lens list.  Regardless, the corrections in terms of distortion and vingnetting seem modest.

In summary I think for myself shooting this is a worthwhile little optic.  It’s small and rugged enough and frankly, if I drop it off a cliff, or into a pond, I can afford a $70.00 I will require to replace it.  And I think it has sufficient quality that it should never get in the way of capturing an excellent image.

After all, isn’t that what we truly require of any lens?