Gear
Tried something new with putting a GoPro on top of my camera and taking video of the game in addition to taking photos to get some new content. It was a really disappointing end to this game (and possibly our season). I really thought we had a good shot of going far in the tournament. Hopefully we can still get a NIT bid but thats pretty questionable as of now.
I rented a 5D Mark III and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for this weekend's assignments from LensRentals.com and was very impressed by the results. The added benefit of renting the Canon gear was that I was able to use our department's 300mm f/2.8 lenses to shoot the football game against Georgia and soccer against Arkansas.
RESPONSIVENESS
Compared to the D800, I felt like the 5D Mark III was much more responsive to use. I really enjoyed having 6 frames per second rather than just 4. Reviewing images was significantly easier due to the quick review using the wheel on the back of the camera. Changing autofocus points takes slightly longer than the D800 and the fact that you have to press a button before changing points can be a little bit annoying. Due to only having the camera for three days, I was not able to go completely through the menus to see if you can change this so I could be wrong.
EASE OF USE
Learning the system was easy enough. Many of the controls are where I am used to on the Nikon and many of the functions are the same. The ISO adjustment button is in an awkward place coming from nikon but it became easier and easier to use as I shot more. The multitude of different autofocus adjustments was a little bit confusing but made more and more sense as I used it.
SILENT MODE
Having a silent mode that is actually quiet was a huge advantage while shooting with the 5D Mark III. I was shooting portraits of radio show hosts while they were on the air and the silent mode allowed me to shoot during that time when I am sure that the D800 would have been far too loud. Also, during standard situations, having your subject not being able to hear the shutter is an extremely attractive feature.
ISO
High ISO performance was about the same as the D800. I was entirely comfortable going to ISO 6400 and even above in certain situations. Shooting the Canon and Nikon side by side at Lights on the Lawn , I may have preferred the Canon had I been able to use something other than the 35mm. In fact, many of the best photos that I took at the concert were taken with the 5D Mark III even without the versatility of having other lenses.
COLOR RENDITION
I did not experience any of the issues that I have had with the D800 in rendering reds, especially in concert situations. The 5D Mark III seemed to struggle a little bit with pink but other than that, I had no other issues with color.
CONCLUSION
All in all, the 5D Mark III is an extremely attractive option, especially with what I shoot 95% of the time. The extra FPS and responsiveness set it apart from the D800. While the extra 14 megapixels of the D800 are certainly helpful, the 5D Mark III outperforms in numerous other areas. It certainly makes the case for switching manufactures more and more appealing.
Easily the most fun that I have had shooting a concert. I was given free reign to do what I wanted for the entire set (shout out to Nashville Social Group for the access for putting on an unbelievable event raising over $30,000 for the Mary Parrish Center). I am really glad that I had earplugs because the speakers that were just in front of the stage were so loud that it was hard to breathe at times... Additionally, this is the first concert that I have shot with the 5D Mark III and am extremely satisfied with the results that I was able to get, shooting only with a 35mm prime lens.
Photo courtesy of Nikon USA
So, this is me starting out in the photography gear review sector and, although I do not have a D610 or a D600 for that matter, I am going to start writing reviews for new and current Nikon and Canon products in the future.
Nikon announced the D610, the supposed "replacement" or "fix for the D600 which they announced 13 months ago almost to the day. This model apparently fixes the oil problem that has caused many people to experience oil spots on the sensors of their D600's. From what I have read about "Oil-gate," most people could not tell that they had an issue unless they overlaid a dozen or photos shot at f/22 on top of one another. Regardless of the existence of the problem in real life shooting conditions, Nikon did very slightly (and I mean VERY SLIGHTLY) up the specs on the newer D6xx model.
Lets start with the frame rate. Nikon claims to have improved the frame rate from 5.5 to 6 frames per second with the new shutter and mechanism found in the D610. Honestly, this really does not make a difference unless you are shooting continuously for 10 seconds or so. Even then, you are only getting 5 more frames off in the same amount of time. I currently shoot with the D800 and am reasonably satisfied with it for the wide variety of shooting that I do in regards to ISO performance, image quality, focus accuracy, and frame rate. However, the main issue that I saw and still see with the "entry level" full frame offering that Nikon has just re-announced is the focusing system. All of the points are clumped together in the center of the frame and only 9 cross type points. In a majority of the situations that I shoot in, that will simply not cut it (See Concerts). Why they decided to skimp on the autofocus system in the D600 and D610 baffles me but its their decision, not mine.
The next "enhancement" of the D610 is the white balance system. This is honestly a VERY useless feature to anyone with the common sense to shoot RAW. Without getting into the RAW vs. JPEG debate, shooting RAW renders any "white balance system" virtually useless because it can be fixed once importing the photos onto the computer for editing. Sure while having an accurate white balance for the photo when shot removes a little bit of time from the editing process, the end truth is that the white balance system improvements are more of a marketing ploy than anything else.
The only real improvement that the D610 has over the D600 is a continuous quiet mode. If the quiet mode on the D610 is anything like the quiet mode on the D7000 or D800, it really is not that quiet at all. Now Nikon gives you 3 frames per second in a quiet mode, which I am interested in seeing in action just because they have not put the feature in any other model that they offer.
Before I bought my D800, I seriously considered the D600 but decided that the various shortcomings of the D600 were significant enough to justify the extra expense. The most important factor in this decision for me was the autofocus system which I viewed as sub par on the D600 when compared to the system that the D800 offers. From experience, the D800 only struggles in the darkest of dark situations (Like the NEEDTOBREATHE concert that I shot last night) but otherwise is fairly spot on. The 36 megapixel certainly magnifies any errors in autofocusing but all-in-all I am pretty satisfied with the results that I have gotten from the D800 (although look out for a hands on 5D Mark III review in the near future. I have realized that it may be a better fit for what I shoot the most although it pains me to say so).