What if I had to pick the best camera or lens Nikon introduced in 2012? Yeah, some of you are already shuddering about where this is going. Let's make it easier, and separate lens and cameras.
In lenses we have seven entrants: 11-27.5mm (CX), 18-300mm (DX), 18.5mm (CX), 24-85mm (FX), 28mm (FX), 70-200mm (FX), and 85mm (FX) introductions. I can cross three of those lenses off the list quite quickly, as they're entry and consumer oriented zooms (11-27.5mm, 18-300mm, 24-85mm). None are bad, but "best"? No.
Of the remaining four, we have three primes and a zoom. While I like all of the primes, the 28mm f/1.8 has some small focus shift/plane issues you have to work around, the 85mm f/1.8 is very good but not great, and the 18.5mm is a really nice fast normal prime for cameras that aren't selling well except with massive discounts, and even then, not all that well.
So we end up with a winner almost by default: the 70-200mm f/4. So far it is looking very good optically in my testing, doesn't have the focal length breathing of the f/2.8, but...is missing a tripod collar and is fairly expensive.
That said, 2012 was far better for lenses than 2011, when I would have had to pick between the 40mm DX and 50mm f/1.8. We have to go back to 2010 to find a year with some real competition (I probably would have chosen the 16-35mm f/4 that year, though there were five other lenses that would give it a strong chase).
Someone asked me this week if "all the news was bad." Well, the lens situation says: it hasn't been a great year for Nikon fans.
But how about the body side? There we have seven candidates: J2, V2 (CX), D3200, D5200 (DX), and D600, D800, and D4 (FX). That's strong (and certainly a far cry from the previous year's J1, V1, and D5100). But closer examination reveals Nikon self-imposed issues that take away from that strength.
I can eliminate the J2 and V2 quickly: they didn't really move the bar in any meaningful way (which you'll find me writing about soon over on sansmirror.com). I can also eliminate the D5200: it's a no show where I live. The D3200 is a very nice camera at the entry DSLR point. I've long felt that the low-end DSLR wasn't quite all there in the Nikon lineup, but the D3200 pretty much puts an end to that: it's a really strong entry camera. But is it the best of the bunch?
On the FX end we have the D600, D800, and D4. Here's the sad thing: had 95% of the D800's delivered been problem free, I think it would have been a no-brainer: the D800 would have been the best camera Nikon put out this year, and maybe even the best camera they've released in the last four years. But my statistics say that more than a fifth of D800's shipped with issues through most of the year. That means that at least 50,000 people didn't get the kinds of results that the camera should deliver. Hard to say best when that many were disappointed. Especially when the company has essentially remained silent about the problem and had trouble fixing it for many.
The D600 didn't exactly inspire in that respect, either. Again, a very good camera, probably the best entry full frame DSLR to date, especially when value also comes into play (assuming you didn't buy on day one ;~). But the dust/oil controversy didn't exactly get it out of the gate cleanly, either (pun intended).
Meanwhile, the D4 doesn't really move the bar from the D3s except in pixel count. Almost all the other iteration Nikon did has downsides (XQD card, always-red AF sensors that ghost, new battery, etc.). The D3s was a great camera, which means not moving the bar makes the D4 a great camera, but again, is that enough to justify "best"?
What it boils down to is this:
- CX -- you got one warmed over update, and one with more pixels that don't deliver more in a body that fixes the mode dial/control problem but now requires yet another battery and has an EVF that isn't as good. No best here.
- DX -- only the entry level camera is current. That update gives you the best DX image quality in the worst DX body. If you're new to Nikon DSLRs and on a budget, you'll like that. If you're already using a Nikon DSLR, as most of this site's visitors are, you won't. No best here.
- FX -- the lineup has been completely refreshed (if you consider the D800 the D3x substitute), and all three cameras are capable of great image quality. Yet all three came with frictions that mitigated the joy that would be generated by that great image quality. Assuming that you got one that worked right from the beginning, the D800 would be clearly the best here. Assuming that you don't mind doing a lot of extra sensor cleaning early on, the D600 is the best value, by far. And if you truly need to squeeze out a few more in focus frames a second in low light, the D4 is still a contender.
Bottom line: Nikon gave FX a lot of love this year*. Their best products were all FX products. That love was mitigated by issue after issue: supply meeting demand issues, quality control issues, denial issues, and most recently, quick big discounts that made customers who bought only a month ago feel foolish.
So was there good news in Nikon-land this year? Sure. I'm pretty happy now with my FX lens set, and I've got a wide range of choices of what to use them on. The D600, D700, D800, D800E, D3, D3s, D3x, and D4 are all darned good cameras. Indeed, in that list almost certainly is a camera that will meet nearly every one of your needs for several years or more. That's got to be good news, right?
*How much love? Check out this Nikon Imaging division video. How much DX love do you see? Note the continuum they present at about the one minute mark: Coolpix to Nikon 1 to Nikon FX pro, totally skipping over DX cameras, which outsell those last two by far. While there are a couple of DX cameras in some of the scenes, the vast majority of the examples are Coolpix, Nikon 1, and FX. Heck, binoculars, scopes, and laser rangefinders get callouts (even though they're not part of the Imaging group) but DX never is mentioned once, even though they mention the Thailand plant that makes them.