Still a great camera after the dust has settled?
Part 1 – the bad news (there's not a lot of it)
It may take longer with a human partner, but 3-4 months of living with a camera is enough to reveal its flaws. Let’s start with a glaring one that I missed in my earlier review: Not enough buttons on the body. A depth-of-field preview button would be great but we're asking for a lot in a bargain-priced consumer body. HDR is an option, however, but there's no button for that either.
I’m no big fan of HDR photography, as I’m a purist at heart, but it comes in handy the harsh contrasts of Australia’s bright sun. The D5100 has no button for this – it’s a menu setting. Worse, it’s a single shot menu setting. In other words, it turns itself off again after one HDR shot. That is the dumbest idea I’ve ever come across, Nikon!
The only way around this, pointed out by a fellow Nikon blogger a while back, is to choose HDR on the selectable FN button. Problem is, that’s the button I use to choose the ISO setting. Why not use the Auto ISO function and let the camera choose the sensitivity? Because that’s something I want some control over.
Another gripe is that the little white lens mount button is too close to the FN button. When you’ve got your eye glued to the viewfinder, it’s easy to mistake as the FN button. On a D40x it’s on the front of the body, not here on the side. On the whole, I have to say that the buttons on the back of the camera still catch me out. The layout just isn't as logical as on a D40, where you can work with your eyes closed.
Does HDR work? Yes, but you’d better make sure you hold the camera steady for the two shots it takes, or use it on a tripod. Otherwise you spoil the outcome.
Normal shooting
HDR-image
Yes, the difference is subtle but it's there - click on the files for a larger image
High ISO shooting in the real world
I get a bit annoyed when I see the ISO comparisons at the end of camera tests, you know: those rows of wine or olive oil labels taken at various settings, probably on a tripod. The D5100’s images were judged by most reviewers as clean at ISO 3200 and fine or at least perfectly usable at ISO 6400. Here are the kind of shots I'm talking about:
ISO 6400
ISO 12,800
These images look just fine, don't they? It's a different story in the real world, where even ISO 3200 is on the ragged edge with noise, smudging and loss of detail.
And ISO 6400 gets more noisy, with more loss of detail.
Here's a close crop
All this is not to say you can’t get usable images after some post-processing and resizing. What I’m trying do here is to get this noise thing into proper perspective: for real-life shooting, ISO 1600 is tops for uncompromised IQ, and ISO 3200 is OK with a bit of care shooting and more in post-processing. ISO 6400 is on the edge, best left for emergencies.
Other stuff
Yes, the viewfinder could be more generous. It could use a penta prism instead of penta mirrors. It would also be bigger and more costly. You can't have it all in this compact package at the modest price Nikon's asking.
Kim
Comments