Nikon-Based Digital SLRs

An email I received this week made me realize that, while I have a lot of specific information about Nikon-based DSLRs on the Web site, I've never really summarized my thoughts about the current crop of bodies in one place. (If you want specifics, go see the review for the particular model elsewhere on this site.) I won't vouch for 100% consistency in opinion across the site as firmware updates and added shooting experience keep making many of my opinions moving targets; it's also difficult to synchronize everything now that the site has sprawled to the size it is. If you see something that confuses you, drop me an email and ask for elaboration.

Shooting JPEG files, here's a quick and dirty summary of the image quality differences as I see them:

Overall, if someone told me I had to shoot JPEG images for publication tomorrow, I'd pick the S2 Pro first and the D1x a close second. None of the others would be fully acceptable to me in this respect, as I'd be giving up something significant. For example, with the D100, sharpness is a real issue shooting JPEG, while with the Pro 14n the write speed can actually be slower than RAW, the buffer size is the same, and the image quality often produces artifacts that aren't in carefully managed RAW files. But be careful, the S2 Pro can generate dreaded color fringing on very fine detail, while the D1x can require post processing for exposure/contrast if you don't use Custom Curves. In short, there is no "great" JPEG Nikon DSLR at present. (And lest you consider Canon based upon that comment, my experience to date with Canon bodies would lead me to the same sort of statement, only for different reasons.) I expect the D2h to be better than the existing bodies for JPEGs when it appears.

For RAW images, the table changes:

RAW is what you want to shoot if you can. The trouble is that RAW workflow can end up more elaborate and time consuming. In terms of trying to produce the best possible image, however, you have no choice--in my opinion RAW is the only way to go. Here, my first choice would be the Pro 14n most of the time, with the D1x and S2 Pro very close seconds. In practice, I tend to choose the D1x over the S2 Pro, but that's usually for handling and other reasons than absolute image quality (the D1x's 1/500 flash sync speed is sure nice on bright days when I need fill flash, for example). Unfortunately, there's another issue that intersects with RAW use, which is the RAW converter you use. I've prepared a separate article summarizing my thoughts there; just remember you can't simply pick the best camera without also considering your converter and computer platform.

For Handling issues, things change yet again:

There's a couple things in that chart you might wonder about. For example, why is the Pro 14n only rated fair at hot temps? Well, that's because I find that noise can rear it's ugly head in hot temps and the camera will sometimes trigger multiple Recalibrating as it warms up (especially true if you use a Microdrive). The delay that causes can be a nuisance to some types of photographers, though other than added noise, it doesn't bother me much. Sensor cleaning on the Nikon models is problematic due to the frame that extends over to the sensor edge--it's a tight space and easy to dislodge grit off the frame onto the CCD you're cleaning!

Finally, for a few other important abilities:

Some of these ratings will be controversial, so I'd better explain them. Autofocus is easy: the D1 series has a better autofocus system than the N80-derived bodies, period. Motor drive is a similar situation, but the S2 Pro doesn't seem to make it up to the claimed frame rate, in my experience, the D100 does a little better than an N80, and the Pro 14n seems dead on to the N80 (all D1 series do better, the D1h particularly so). The S2 Pro's ability to cancel pre-flash puts it squarely above the others, though note that you can only reliably use the S2's flash in TTL at ISO 400 or lower. You'll note that I've rated the S2 Pro's exposure accuracy as "varies with body." I've now had experience with almost a dozen S2 Pro bodies, and there seems to be no consistency amongst them. Moreover, my own body came back from being fixed by Fujifilm and now shoots at almost exactly one stop different than it did before it started to have problems. Fortunately, all the bodies tend to be consistent onto themselves, but I really don't like have to keep my exposure compensation set to -1EV on my S2 Pro as my "zero point."

Mac users should be particularly careful about selecting cameras. Two issues come up: tethered shooting/downloading and quality/performance of the supplied Macintosh software. In general, Firewire cameras do better on Macs than USB cameras. Moreover, Nikon's Macintosh software is actually pretty mature, and Kodak's seems to have been developed there first and then brought to Windows. Fujifilm's Macintosh offerings seem poor in comparison. Overall, software performance tends to suffer on Macs, even for Nikon's offerings.

As I noted before, if you want more about a particular camera, see the review for that particular camera. Within the next week or two I should have made another pass at updating them all.

The tables are filled with rating words that run in graded ranges, such as this

BEST
very low
low
moderate
high
very high
WORST

or

BEST
excellent
very good
good
fair
poor
very poor
WORST

If you see a + following a rating, that means it's a bit better than the word would indicate, but not good enough to make the next better 'grade'; while if you see a - after a rating, that means that it's not quite that good, but not bad enough to make the next lower grade.

Some of the terminology in the image quality tables needs description:

Sharpness versus detail: Sharpness is the ability to clearly define edges, while detail is the ability to resolve small objects. Obviously, they interact, but in general you need sharpness before detail, and there are clear differences in the final image when these items vary.

Color fidelity versus saturation: fidelity means the ability to resolve a color as it really is, while saturation is the ability to record a color with contrast and "snap."

Artifacts can be all sorts of things, but in general would primarily be moire, color fringing, stair stepping, and compression artifacts.

The "Overall" ratings are not an average of the other individual ratings, but my assessment of the impact of all the individual nuances taken together. For the intended use, I would choose to use a camera rated good before I would use one rated fair, for instance.

Finally, one caveat: I've worked with many D1 series, D100, and S2 Pro bodies, but at present only have experience with a single Pro 14n body.