This post has been temporarily due to contradictory results. Once I get this sorted out with more careful testing, I will repost the findings. My apologies for any confusion.

Read More......

After about a year of trying, I have failed to get good looking black-and-white images from my digital workflow. With that in mind, I recently bought my first 35mm film camera in years, a Canonet GIII QL17 rangefinder. Unfortunately, that camera had a stuck shutter release and stripped light seals, so I bought another one. The second was also plagued by issues, this time related to the pressure plate scratching film. Yet, the few rolls of film I put through these cameras were enough to convince me that even C41 B&W film (Ilford XP2) developed and scanned at Costco had more of the look I have been pursuing than I can get out of my Canon 5D and Alien Skin Exposure. Here's a shot of my son Oliver off the first roll. He was so excited to meet Santa while my wife was shopping for a purse =).


The issues finding a good Canonet prompted me to look elsewhere. I considered buying a Bessa R3A with a Nokton 40/1.4, but that's just a little more than I'd like to spend on a film camera right now. Although I enjoyed the rangefinder experience with the Canonets, the most cost-effective way for me to go with film right now was the SLR route. I already own a few nice lenses for the Olympus OM system (purchased for use via adapter on the Canon 5D), so I went ahead and purchased the Olympus OM 2n film SLR camera.


My new camera should be here soon. Hopefully I will have better luck with this purchase!

Read More......

This content has been moved to the new SeriousCompacts.com.

Click here to go to the new location

Read More......

It has been widely held that the Four Thirds system offers better corner sharpness than does traditional 35mm photography, so as a user of both systems I thought I'd do a simple test.

Systems compared:
1) Canon 5D (35mm sensor) with EF 28mm f/2.8 prime. This is a cheap lens with sharper corners at 28mm than the more expensive Canon 28mm f/1.8 copy I previously owned. Obviously this lens does not represent the ultimate in corner sharpness available for the 5D (that would require some very expensive glass), but it competes well with the much more expensive L zooms at this focal length (confirmed by SLRGear testing). Look here for a comparison of 13 lenses at this focal length tested on a 5D. You can see that the 28/2.8 is no slouch.
2) Olympus E-410 with 14-42mm zoom (kit lens)

In terms of lens and body, I was somewhat unfair to the Four Thirds system here. The 14-42 is outperformed by the higher cost Olympus zooms (also confirmed by SLRGear testing), and the E-410 has less per-pixel sharpness than the Panasonic DMC-L10 or Olympus E-3.

The 5D was at ISO 800 with the 28mm lens stopped down to f/11
The E-410 was at ISO 200 with the kit lens at 14mm and f/5.6
This was done so that the two systems would produce images with the same depth of field, diagonal angle of view, perspective, and apparent exposure given the same shutter speed and print size.

Shutter speed with both systems was 1/250s. Unfortunately I left my tripod at my parents' home, so both systems were shot handheld. I picked the best of four shots in each case. In each case, all four shots came out the same. I can reliably handhold a 28mm lens at 1/250s.

For processing, I converted from proprietary RAW to DNG in Lightroom and then processed in C1 4 beta using default sharpening (same for both cameras) and zero noise reduction.

More points to consider: 1) To compare these images, they should be examined at the same print size. I did not upres the E-410 photo or downres the 5D photo because the method used to do either could potentially introduce bias. Of course you can do this on your own. I printed them for comparison. 2) C1 doesn't have a specific color profile for the E-410. Color differences here are not representative of these camera models IMO. 3) These two lenses do not represent all lenses available for their given systems (duh). Again, this is a cheap prime designed decades ago versus a cheap zoom designed recently.

Click here for the two images with full-res version and EXIFs available.

Here they are as resized by Flickr. You can see the smearing in the extreme corners of the Canon shot even at this size (Click image for the intended viewing size):


In contrast, corner softness is barely apparent on the Olympus image at this size (Click image for the intended viewing size):


Here's a representative corner crop (Click image for the intended viewing size):


This crop shows the greater overall resolution and accutance of the particular Canon system used in this comparison (Click image for the intended viewing size):


My observations: 1) Softness in the extreme corners was clearly present on the Canon image and much more subtle with the Olympus image. 2) The overall detail rendered by the Canon system was greater. 3) Noise levels were comparable.

Again, this is just one comparison. While I found the results interesting, more lenses and bodies from each format would have to be compared to reach significant conclusions.

Read More......

One of the things I've noticed about images from my Olympus E-410 is that they display less "per-pixel" sharpness than those from my Canon 5D. I can attribute this in part to the fact that I use some nice primes with the 5D, whereas I use only the "Standard" class of Olympus glass on my E-410. The weak anti-aliasing filter on the 5D is another likely factor. However, I have wondered whether the Canon's larger pixels were a bit easier on the resolving ability of the lens, since I noticed a step up in sharpness going from the 30D to the 5D. By comparison, all Four Thirds sensors have quite a high pixel density, and I wasn't sure whether Four Thirds glass could deliver the resolution to match. The recent Panasonic DMC-L10 review at DPReview has nicely addressed this issue. Compared to the E-510, which shares the same sensor as my E-410, the L10 sensor appears to deliver superior per-pixel sharpness. See the comparison here. All crops in that comparison were processed identically from RAW, and the excellent Olympus ZD 50mm macro was used on both bodies. The L10 crops show the sort of resolution I have come to expect from the 5D, so I have concluded that the Olympus glass is up to the task. Hopefully the next generation super-compact body from Olympus will have a similar sensor to the one in the L10, In my case, it doesn't matter much given my choice of lenses. The 14-42mm kit lens, which I love, is well matched to the abilities of the E-410 sensor.

Read More......

16-9.net pitted the new Canon 14mm f/2.8L II against the new Nikon 14-28/2.8 at 14mm. Each was mounted on the new Canon flagship, the 1Ds Mk III, the Nikon using a lens mount adapter. I'm not going to say anything about the results. You just have to see it for yourself. Wow.

Read More......

Pavel Kudrys posted some GRD II vs GX100 image crop comparisons at Ricoh Forum and was kind enough again to share the source files. This time, he processed the DNG files using dcraw, which is probably the best method one can use to compare the native files. Definitely worth checking out!

Read More......

Rumors of a compact 25mm (50mm equivalent angle of view) lens for Olympus Digital have been circulating in the DPReview forums. I don't know whether there is any reason to believe them other than the fact that this is what I've been wanting ever since buying the "remarkably small" E-410. The 14-42 zoom is very good, but my preference is to shoot primes. A 17.5, 20, or 25mm compact f/2 ZD lens would make my PMA!

Update - More on this rumor can be found here.

Read More......

In March, Fujifilm released the Klasse S, a compact 35mm film camera featuring a high quality 38mm f/2.8 lens and fully manual controls. It's also available with a 28mm lens (Klasse W). At $750 shipped on Ebay, the price is a bit steep. The similar Rollei AFM 35 (Fujifilm Klasse) was available at less than half the price not long ago. Nonetheless, I'm strongly considering the new Klasse S. Now if only Fuji would get around to making a Klasse D (Digital)!

Read More......

Sounds funny, doesn't it? "Compact Cameras with Inherently Deep DOF" describes just about every "point-and-shoot" camera one can think of, yet "P&S photography" isn't the subject of the "4/3rds and Small Sensor Cameras" forum at GetDPI.com. Rather, this new forum has been created to foster discussion of the serious use of relatively small-sensor cameras, in particular those that allow manual control. Thus far, much of the discussion has been focused on the Ricoh GRD/GRD II and GX100, but it is expected that discussion will be cross-brand. The forum is off to a very good start, and hopefully it will flourish. After considering a number of sample images and brief user reviews of the GRD II, it was this comparison posted by Mitch Alland that finally convinced me to go for it.

Addendum: A new forum has been created there for Four Thirds, distinct from the Small Sensor Forum. This makes more sense to me.

Read More......

I just started a tumblelog for my daily ramblings. A public, personal journal of sorts - mostly non-photography related. Feel free to visit and say hello ;-).

Read More......

LetsGoDigital has posted a detailed preview of the new Ricoh GR digital II. The preview is accompanied by some very positive editorial comments about the pre-production unit they have in hand. One interesting comment in the preview is that the GRD II uses "the same CCD image sensor as that of the GX100 camera." I haven't seen Ricoh confirm this anywhere, but the GRD 2 RAW files I have seen do have a similar quality to GX100 RAW files. Lars Jeppeson, an owner of both cameras, made a similar observation in the Ricoh Forum and posted some examples of processed ISO 80 and ISO 400 RAWs.

Most if not all of those who own both the GRD and GRD II seem to feel that the latter produces significantly better image quality than the former, particularly at higher ISO. According to the LetsGoDigital preview, the GR lens is said to have been left unchanged with the new model.

Read More......

Phil Holland has posted an excellent review of Canon's latest flagship, the 1Ds Mark III. Even if you don't have $8000+ to spend on a camera body, this is an interesting read. You can find it here.

Read More......

Read More......

Sigma has updated us on the status of the DP1, a product they announced over a year ago. As most of you know, the alleged DP1 is groundbreaking in that it is a compact digital camera with a large sensor. While I'm pleased to learn that Sigma hasn't scrapped the idea entirely, I refuse to get excited about a product that has been delayed this long. If the fixed 28mm f/4 lens were a 35mm f/2.8 lens instead, I'd probably manage a bit more enthusiasm. That said, even with total light-gathering ability similar to a small sensor camera with a fast lens, the large Foveon sensor should provide really nice dynamic range and color, likely best-in-class amongst compact cameras.

Someone wake me up when this thing is on the shelves, okay?

Read More......

There seems to be a lively discussion in a photography forum in Israel related to my earlier post, "Small Format Deep DOF Advantage - Fact or Myth?"


If anyone from that forum reads this post, or if any other other readers speak Hebrew, I would love to know whether those in that discussion think I'm crazy or what. So far, aided by one friend who reads Hebrew at the level of a two-year-old, I can't make out any of it. I'm still enjoying it in parts, especially this post in which Godzilla has a facial expression similar to the avatar of the man who posted him :-p.

Read More......

This content has been moved to the new SeriousCompacts.com.


Click here to go to the new location

Read More......

Pavel Kudrys posted an excellent comparison of GRD and GRD II images in Ricoh Forum and was kind enough to make the RAW images available for download. There is little doubt to me that the GRD II images look better (more detail, better white balance, etc), though I believe additional samples will be necessary to determine if this improved image quality is consistently observed. I hate to focus on the negative, but I found two things somewhat worrisome. The first and more obvious is that the GRD II ISO 800 and ISO 1600 color in-camera JPEGs look positively freakish. If that is noise reduction, then give me noise! The more subtle observation is that the GRD II files appear to have less noise, which makes me wonder if this is accomplished via noise reduction applied to the RAW images. Two things are reassuring in this respect. First, I don't notice any smearing of detail in the GRD II files, and second, the disparity between GRD and GRD II noise seems highly dependent on choice of RAW processor. With the RAW processing applications I examined at minimum noise reduction settings, C1 4 beta 2 seems to do the least noise reduction on these files.

Click the image below to see a comparison of ISO 800 crops from the GRD and GRD II as processed using Lightroom, Lightzone, and C1.


Thanks again to Pavel for sharing the RAW files used in this comparison.

Addendum: Here are some ISO 800 crops just to look at noise characteristics. Again, these are from the RAW files provided by Pavel. No resizing, NR, or sharpening done by me.

The crops were taken from the approximate regions shown in yellow:


Here are the bottom center crops:


Here are the top center crops:


Anyone else think the GRD2 noise has a bit more of a "smeared" quality?

Addendum #2: Some discussion of these issues is taking place here and here. After further review of the RAWs, and in light of John Sheehy's (here and here) and PIX Surgeon's remarks (here and here), I think it is unlikely that Ricoh has applied on-sensor, destructive NR to the GRD2 RAW files. That is a relief! Based on these early samples, I believe that the majority of users and reviewers alike will greatly prefer the image quality of the GRD 2 to that of the GRD. On the other hand, the GRD 2 noise does not seem as crisp as it is with the GRD, so the overall high ISO (ISO 400+) aesthetic may not suit everyone who appreciates the GRD look.

Read More......

People sometimes say that all digital images look the same. I don't think they're referring to noise versus grain, the large DOF of small sensor cameras, or the tendency many of us have to overprocess our images. These are all issues that affect the usual "digital look," but color and distribution of tones are closer to the heart of the matter. On the one hand, each company has a characteristic way to do color and contrast, and this is apparent in the look of in-camera JPEGs. In this way, the "look" imparted by an in-camera image processing engine is a bit like a film stock. Each camera brand has a characteristic way of handling color and contrast, and often I can spot the images from one versus another. Yet, as anyone who has ever shot film knows, the differences between different film stocks are far more distinct than the differences between in-camera image processing engines. It seems that with digital cameras, each company is going for a similar basic look. With film stocks, each company has gone for something unique.

A number of folks with considerable experience shooting film and good Photoshop skills have been able to simulate the look of their favorite films through postprocessing. Petteri has a very nice writeup of his thoughts and experiences in this area. He was also kind enough to share his curves via a download link at the end of the article. Yet many simply don't have the film experience to know which stocks they like. Some of us don't even know what look we want until we see it. That's where Alien Skin's Exposure comes in. Exposure allows us to apply the look of a film stock of choice to our images. There are tons of color and black and white film stocks to choose from. For those of us who don't know much about the look of these films, it allows us to preview the image with any given film simulation. For those who know a bit about processing, there are some great tools included for customizing color and contrast settings from the defaults for a given film stock, and it is simple to save these customized simluations for repeat use at a later time. There are plenty of Exposure reviews online, and my purpose with this post isn't to do another one. My point is simply to say that Exposure has completely changed the way I process. I now convert from RAW with a goal of creating a flat contrast image with true colors, and nearly every resulting image goes through Exposure. Often I don't even know how I want an image to look until I start applying a variety of simulations. I'll go through each in turn until one just looks right. At $249, it's an expensive product, but worth the asking price to me. I'm still using version 1.5 because I'm more than happy with the results and don't want to pay the $149 upgrade price. For anyone whose postprocessing results don't meet their needs, I can easily recommend Alien Skin Exposure.

Click here to view an animated GIF comparing a few of my favorite film simulations with the default colors from a C1 converted 5D image. The file is over 3MB in size, so it may take a while to load.

Read More......

I recently picked up the Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR DI VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro for $599 at my local Ritz Camera. On the Canon 5D, this lens covers the range from wide angle to supertelephoto. VC stands for vibration compensation, which is Tamron's name for image stabilization. This is Tamron's first VC lens, so I was anxious to give it a try. I have been impressed by the high performance and compact size of Tamron's 17-35, 17-50, and 28-75mm lenses, but I went into this purchase with realistic expectations. No 11x zoom is going to have top tier image quality, and Tamron made this lens amazingly compact despite the vast coverage.

Vitals:
Lens Construction (Groups/Elements) 13/18
Angle of View 75°23'-8°15' (APS-C size equivalent)
Type of Zooming Rotation
Diaphragm Blade Number 9
Minimum Aperture F/22 ~ F/40 (28mm-300mm)
Minimum Focus Distance 19.3in.(0.49m) (entire zoom range)
Macro Magnification Ratio 1:3 (at f=300mm, MFD=0.49m)
Filter Diameter ø67
Weight 555g (19.4oz)*
Diameter x Length ø3.06 x 3.9in.
(ø78 x 99mm)
Accessory Flower-shaped Lens hood
Mount Canon, Nikon (with Built-In Motor for use with all Nikon DSLR cameras)
*values given for Nikon AF cameras

Preliminary thought after a few days of use:

- Performance on a 5D is roughly similar to what is graphically represented in the SLR Gear test for the non-VC version. I highly recommend you check out the lens tests over there. They are doing great work!

- VC is extremely effective. At least three stops of compensation in my experience. Surpasses expectations.

- Bokeh is actually very good. This lens does a pretty nice job rendering the OOF areas.

- I torture tested this slow zoom by using it for indoor, non-flash, family snapshots with the 5D at ISO 3200. AF hunts at full tele in low light, and the noise is typical Tamron, but this is all to be expected. Overall AF speed is slow but reliable. AF noise is typical Tamron.

- Build quality is okay. Solid, plastic, and a step below Tamron SP in my opinion. Not a major problem, but slightly better build would be nice in a $600 lens. Manual focus ring isn't the nicest, but it works. No wobbling or creaking. There is a zoom lock to prevent inadvertant barrel extension.

- Minimum focus distance of 0.49m is impressive. This really is a versatile lens.

I went out in my parents' backyard this Thanksgiving morning and took some test shots at 28mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm, and 300mm. You can see them full-res here, with EXIFs intact.

Here are a few Thanksgiving holiday family photos taken with this lens, again on the 5D. Click on each image for intended viewing size.

216mm f/5.6:



28mm f/8:



300mm f/8:



184mm f/7.1:



Full-res versions of the above photos and more are here.

For kicks, here's a 50% crop of a hawk that flew overhead during my lens tests (Click on image):



In summary, this lens does everything okay, but nothing at a very high level. Quoted from the SLR Gear review of the non-VC version of this lens: "If you only shoot snapshots with your own 5D or 1Ds Mark II, you might be happy with the Tamron 28-300mm on it (which does in that case provide truly wide-angle shots at its short end). But if you're just shooting snapshots, do you really need a full-frame DSLR?"

I'm still wondering if my money wouldn't be better spent towards a less versatile but higher performing optic.

Addendum - I've decided to keeep mine for its sheer versatility. Blurry edges and all, I'm getting some good results out of this lens. In particular, I find it to be a good lens for family photos when I am too lazy to "zoom with my feet," and I would not hesitate to use this as a travel lens with the 5D.

Addendum #2 - I've gotten more than a couple emails asking "Should I buy this lens or..." Here are my thoughts on this: If you use a 1.6x Canon (D. Rebel, XT, XTi, D30/D60/10D/20D/30D) and want the best quality relatively compact telephoto that goes to 300mm for this budget, then go for the somewhat larger and heavier Canon EF 70-300mm IS zoom instead. Note that this lens is not the same as the older Canon 75-300mm IS, which is not as good, or the 70-300mm DO IS, which is much more expensive. If you don't need to go all the way to 300mm, then all the Canon 70-200mm lenses are excellent on all bodies. The advantage of the Tamron 28-300 VC is that it is a compact, all-in-one solution. On a 5D, it covers from wide angle to far telephoto, and on a 1.6x body it covers from "normal" to supertelephoto. On both, it does a respectable job of "near macro." It simply won't match a bulkier two lens combination in image quality.

If you do decide to buy the Tamron and this user review has helped you, you can help me by purchasing your lens from Amazon after going there via the link below. Also feel free to use the other link below to buy the Canon 70-300 ;-).



Visiting the Amazon page using those links doesn't change your price but makes it so that Amazon shares a bit of the profits with me. I can honestly recommend Amazon for lenses and other photography gear. In addition to competitive prices, they have great customer service and one of the best return policies around (though if the item is being sold on Amazon by a third paty seller, then the return policy of that seller would apply).

Read More......

There aren't many English language places to exchange thoughts, photos, and information related to Ricoh photography, so I started a Ricoh Photography group on Facebook. If you use or are interested in Ricoh cameras and/or lenses, I hope you will join and contribute to this new group.

Read More......

The Venus III engine is widely known for its tendency to apply heavyhanded noise reduction. Less commonly discussed are the positive aspects of the Panasonic in-camera processor. It is widely appreciated that in-camera processing addresses many ills, amongst them softness, low contrast, and purple fringing. As a RAW shooter, I sometimes wonder what else is being accomplished with the in-camera JPEG that I must try to match by hand. I look forward to the day that my RAW processors of choice can automatically match the in-camera processing as a starting point for further developing. So what exactly is the state of the art for in-camera processing?

The Panasonic DMC-FZ18 represents quite a feat. It is relatively compact and features an 18x zoom starting at the 28mm FOV equivalent in 35mm photography terms. Despite this massive zoom range, the JPEG results are remarkably free of distortion, free of purple fringing, and show impressive corner sharpness. Quite a feat of optics from Leica, no? Well, it turns out that the credit for much of this apparently optical achievement goes in fact to the often maligned Venus III engine. A DPR user named Dcuk has stumbled upon the fact that the in-camera processing not only addresses barrel distortion but chops off a bit of those nasty corners in the process! See the thread here for details, examples, and discussion. This really shouldn't surprise me. After all, I often correct distortion in post-processing, and anything we can do in post is achievable in-camera. Still, I found Dcuk's discovery very interesting, particularly from the standpoint of a RAW shooter missing out on that Venus III goodness. If you find these in-camera adjustments distasteful, consider the fact that while the human eye couples a mediocre lens to a good sensor (retina), it's the processor (brain) that makes for great imaging in the case of human vision.

Read More......

I've decided to rename the Spotlight feature on the blog as FOF (Found on Flickr), since thats where I most often go to browse photos. Today's FOF is "Street Fighting" by Ariil Davidoff (Arique). I was browsing the "Hardcore Street Photography" group, and this one jumped out at me.

Read More......

The new AminPhoto pipe (feed aggregator) has been updated to include additional sources including DPReview, The Online Photographer, Pop Photo, The Luminous Landscape, PhotographyBLOG, Engadget, Gizmodo, Rob Galbraith, Imaging Resource, DPNow, DCResource, ePhotozine, Cameratown, DCViews, DigitalCameraInfo, DPhotoJournal, DigitalPhotoNews, and more.

Read More......

Yahoo Pipes is a highly customizable tool for aggregating feeds. I spent a few minutes yesterday quickly putting together a feed, which for now is structured like this:



Click here to see the result. Let me know if I've overlooked any of your favorite photography feeds!

Read More......

I think most of us feel that sensor dynamic range (DR) is an important thing to assess in a camera. Is anyone doing it well? Of all the sites which tell us about DR on one camera vs another, I just don't have confidence in any of their methods. I don't mean any offense to any of the reviewers on the big sites, not that they're reading this anyway =). I'll try to explain myself here as well as I can.

I'll start with the table found 2/3 way down on this page at Imaging-Resource.
Those results just don't remotely jibe with my real world experience having owned or extensively used a bunch of cameras on that list. Furthermore, their methods - using the lowest ISO possible for each camera and different ACR versions for different cameras - just don't strike me as valid.

Next, consider DPReview. First look here, where Phil Askey, Editor of DPReview, had the following to say regarding the DR of the 5D versus the 40D: "Naturally the 5D's full frame sensor is going to give you better DR, IQ will depend more on your lenses than the camera." Now after reading that, look at what the DPReview 30D and 5D reviews show for dynamic range here, here, and here. Their testing method shows essentially no difference in DR between the 30D and the 5D.

Most like to say that DR correlates best to pixel size/density. That agrees pretty well with my real life experience, but not all that well. My 4-year-old camera with a 5MP 2/3" sensor seems to hold it's own in DR with my new camera with a 10MP 4/3" sensor, which has half the pixel density. I may be wrong about that; it's a preliminary opinion based on regular shooting without any rigorous testing. My old Fuji F30 had a lower pixel density than many of its competitors, but DR always seemed to be in limited supply with that camera. I'll chalk that up to in-camera processing since there was no RAW file available. My personal experience, again without rigorous testing, is that the 5D has noticeably more sensor DR than the 30D. Still, none of the rigorous testing on DPR and other sites seems to demonstrate a tight correlation between pixel size and DR.

Here's how DPR measures dynamic range in their words. From the 5D review:
"Our new Dynamic Range measurement system involves shooting a calibrated Stouffer Step Wedge (13 stops total range) which is backlit using a daylight balanced lamp (98 CRI). A single shot of this produces a gray scale wedge from (the cameras) black to clipped white (example below). Each step of the scale is equivalent to 1/3 EV (a third of a stop), we select one step as 'middle gray' and measure outwards to define the dynamic range. Hence there are 'two sides' to our results, the amount of shadow range (below middle gray) and the amount of highlight range (above middle gray)."

Sounds great, right? I think it would be fair to say that based on the DSLR test results on this DPReview, the Fuji S5 has the most DR, the Oly E-410 the least, and all the other DSLRs about the same. JPEG results don't matter much to me as I shoot almost exclusively RAW. Also, JPEG results don't tell us as much about sensor DR. Here's the deal from the E-410 review conclusion: "Secondly we were kind of disappointed with the dynamic range performance - dropping three quarters of a stop of highlight range can be the difference between a beautiful blue sky and one which is white and washed-out". Now take a look at the "RAW headroom" graphs on this page from the E-410 review and this one from the 400D/XTi review. I don't see where this 3/4 stop highlight loss is coming from. Even in their JPEG performance curves, it doesn't look like 3/4 stop (except vs the Canon), but in RAW - where it counts IMO - it's almost a dead heat.

I'm no Olympus fanboy. In fact, as I alluded to above, my early impression with the E-410 is that DR in RAW is more limited than I had expected it to be. However, I believe the following are probably true:
1) None of the major review sites are assessing DR in a way that helps us learn what we need to know.
2) The commonly taught principle that sensor DR correlates very closely with pixel size, while as useful a way as any to guess about a given camera's DR capability, is probably far from perfect in practice.
3) Perhaps some of us should give greater consideration to how lenses can maximize delivery to the sensor in such a way that makes the most of the sensor DR we're given, whether that be using ND Grad filters with a bright sky or keeping around an old, low-contrast prime for a day of digital black and white.

Read More......

I'm taking an idea from TOP here. From time to time, TOP features a photo under the title "Random Excellence," highlighting laudable work to be found on the web. While getting featured on TOP has the desirable effect of driving a great deal of traffic to the notable photographer, I expect that getting Spotlighted on my little blog will direct just a few. Nonetheless, I'll enjoy featuring some of the great works I come across on the web, and hopefully some of the readers will enjoy them as well.

For my first Spotlight, I'd like to call attention to a photograph by Grant Klein, used under a Creative Commons license. Click the image for the intended viewing size.


Grant is a photographer and graphic designer in California, whom I came across on the networking site Virb. It was actually my four-year-old, train-obsessed, web-surfing son Oliver who first noted this photograph, taken outside of Las Vegas. Grant's website is GrantKlein.com, and his Virb page is here.

Read More......

The Online Photographer (TOP) is one of the few photography blogs I read regularly. Mike Johnston's recent post, "Me and My D3," is one to which I can relate very well. Although much tempted by the latest, greatest in tech, things have gotten to the point where the latest gear offers much more than I can use. Shortly after the Canon 5D was released, folks on the DPReview forums began to clamor for more features, such as weather sealing, 45-point autofocus, more megapixels, etc. The only things I can think of to want are a smaller, lighter camera, and more dynamic range (DR). Unfortunately, my desires seem to be in a different direction than most, so I doubt I'll see them met in the near future. In fact, given a choice between putting 5 more MP or 1 stop more DR in the 5D replacement, I'm pretty sure Canon would choose the former though I would certainly prefer the latter. It's no problem though. I'm content where I stand gearwise, and technology will undoubtedly bring me my compact 35mm digital camera with tons of DR before long. In the meanwhile, the latest pro bodies we're seeing from Canon and Nikon are sure to delight those who need all of those amazing features.

Read More......

Earlier today, I blogged about the relative qualities of Adobe Lightroom (LR) 1.2 and Phase One Capture One (C1) 4 beta with regards to the processing of high ISO files from the Olympus E-410. Having also recently processed Ricoh GX100 files in both LR and C1 (beta), I thought I'd share an example from the GX100 here as well.

I took this ISO 800 shot with my GX100 earlier this evening to use as an example. I should note first that C1 does not officially support GX100 files, though it has preliminary support for the DNG format and will process Ricoh RAW.

Here is a screenshot of the low-light ISO 800 image being processed in LR 1.2 on the left and C1 4 beta on the right. Click the image twice for the intended viewing size. Both programs preview changes in real time when viewing at 100% like this, so these are how the processed images look as well. As you can see, there is a lot of blotchy color noise in the LR image despite the color noise removal being maxed out. IMO the character of the noise is also less attractive in LR.


Here are the images after processing in Noise Ninja (NN) using the same NN parameters for noise removal and sharpening. As before, the LR image is on the left and the C1 image is on the right. As you can see, the "coarse noise" option in Noisehttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif Ninja was able to improve, but not eliminate, the color blotches in the LR image.


I did this all very quickly, so the colors are uncorrected in the case of both LR and C1. If anyone is interested, I have made both the RAW (DNG) file as well as the in-camera JPEG (B&W) available as a downloadable zip file here.

I should mention that although I showed this file being processed with all kinds of sharpening, I never treat my high ISO GX100 images that way. With this type of shot, I generally apply zero sharpening and only the standard level of luminance NR in C1, which is less than zero sharpening in LR terms. I also generally convert to B&W using Alien Skin Exposure. In my opinion, the ISO 800 noise from the GX100 has a pleasant quality when left without sharpening with C1 as the RAW processor. Here's a 50% crop of the image given that treatment (Click image twice for full size):


Here's the resized image:


The default in-camera JPEG for comparison:

Read More......

There are many things I'd like to blog, but unfortunately time hasn't permitted me to do much lately. With that said, here are a few of the upcoming topics I'm planning. This post is mostly for my own sake, but feel free to comment if you'd like to see something in particular.

Anticipated soon:
- Olympus E-410: This poor man's Leica M8
- Using Manual Focus Lenses on DSLRs
- Resources for Buying and Selling Used Photography Gear
- Cosina-Voigtlander 28/35 MiniFinder User Review
- Ricoh GX100 RAW Processor Shootout
- Why Shoot RAW? (by request of my brother Bijan)

Read More......

For RAW processing of Canon DSLR files, Phase One's Capture One (C1) software is unmatched in my opinion. In particular, using the Etcetera color profiles developed by Magne Nilsen, C1 does the nicest job with color rendering and also seems to do a better job capturing fine detail without excess noise. Unfortunately, C1 does not support all cameras which offer RAW, whereas Adobe's Lightroom (LR) basically does. With the Leica Digilux 2 (D2), I find that ACR 4.0/LR 1.0 does an excellent job. In fact, I keep Photoshop non-updated on one of my Macs for the sole purpose of maintaining the 4.0 version of ACR. LR 1.1 made a mess of my D2 files, and I haven't yet had a chance to try LR 1.2 with them. With the Olympus E-410 and Ricoh GX100, I'm finding that, unlike LR 1.1, LR 1.2 does a nice job with low ISO files. However, for higher ISO files I turn to the buggy C1 beta for reasons mentioned here. If anyone has found a RAW processor for Olympus and Ricoh that can match the low ISO performance of Lightroom and the high ISO performance of C1, I would love to hear about it.

Read More......

Recently I purchased an Olympus E-410 kit, which is currently the most compact and light DSLR kit on the market. It's a nice solution for the days when the Canon 5D is too large and heavy but I want something more than a compact digital camera. Here they are, side-by-side, with a Zuiko OM 50mm f/1.2 lens on the E-410 and a Vivitar 135mm f/2.3 lens on the 5D:



In most respects, I'm very happy with the E-410. However, high ISO performance has been a bit disappointing. It's not that I expected the E-410, which has a sensor 1/4th the size of a 35mm sensor, to match the 5D in this respect. However, I had hoped that it would fare a bit better than it does. To be fair, a significant portion of my E-410 high ISO woes derive from the fact that I shoot only in RAW format. The default E-410 in-camera JPEGs seem to handle noise pretty well depending on the settings one chooses. However, the results I was getting using Adobe Camera RAW were marginal at ISO 800 and downright poor at ISO 1600. The main problem was blotchy color noise, distributed in coarse patches. I should note that the version of ACR I was using did not officially support the E-410. I was thus happy to learn yesterday that the new version of ACR and Lightroom (same RAW conversion engine in these Adobe products) officially support the E-510, which has the same sensor as the E-410. Therefore, I gave LR 1.2 a try with some high ISO files. As a comparison, I also processed the same files using Phase One's Capture One Version 4 Beta. I should note that the E-410 is not yet supported by C1 v4 Beta. In fact, to get C1 to recognize the files, I had to first convert them to DNG using Lightroom. Nonetheless, the results were interesting, so I will share a representative example here.

This test was conducted as follows:
- The photo was taken at ISO 1600 and underexposed a bit. I did not push the exposure up during RAW processing.
- All RAW conversion settings were at default except as noted
- Both C1 and Lightroom 1.2 noise reduction parameters were set to 67 for color noise and zero for luminance noise
- RAW conversion sharpening settings were at default for both C1 and LR.
- Both C1 and LR were used to export 16-bit TIFF files (Adobe RGB color profile) to PS CS3 for further processing.
- TIFFs were processed using the Noise Ninja plugin for CS3 using auto profile. Noise Ninja settings were at default for both files except that I set the sharpening amount to 60% on the file processed from C1 and twice that for the file processed from LR. This was done to make the apparent level of sharpening/detail more similar between the two images.
- Levels were adjusted identically in both photos to correct for underexposure, and then rough color correction using the PS color balance tool was done on each image.

Obvious issues with this methodology:
- Setting the NR values to the same number in each RAW processing application certainly does not mean that the same amount of NR was being applied in each case. In fact, it was obvious that compared to C1, LR 1.2 is applying considerable luminance NR at the minimum/"zero" setting, though not nearly so much as in LR 1.1.
- Likewise, setting the sharpening values to the same number in each RAW processing application does not mean they are getting the same amount of sharpening.
- E-410 RAW files are not explicitly supported by C1 or LR, though I assume they are supported in LR since LR offically supports the E-510, which has the same sensor.
- Differences in Noise Ninja sharpening settings obviously affect the outcome image quality.
- Color balance adjustments in the end of the process also affected the outcome.

I have experimented with a number of different settings and chose these for this comparison. However, given the significant issues mentioned above and others I may not have consisered, I think that the best way for others to see for themselves is to do a similar comparison using the RAW file. Feel free to download my RAW file in DNG format for testing by going here.

My main findings were as follows:
- C1 4 Beta is buggy as can be. Crashes often. Hopefully the E-410 will be supported in C1 v3.7 soon.
- LR 1.2 is a major improvement on LR 1.1. Everything looked unnatural to me at the pixel level in LR 1.1, and this has been largely addressed.
- LR 1.2 continues to apply more luminance noise reduction than I would like at baseline.
- LR 1.2 color noise reduction does a nice job handling fine color noise but doesn't effectively handle patches of blotchy color.
- C1 color noise reduction effetively eliminates these patches almost completely.
- Noise Ninja's "coarse noise" setting is capable of reducing any residual blotchy color noise remaining after RAW conversion, but can't completely eliminate them from the files processed from LR.
- I prefer the character of the noise after C1 conversion to that of the noise after LR conversion, though neither is very "film-like."

Here are the examples. First, the image processed by LR 1.2 (resized):


Next, the resized C1 conversion:


Here's what I mean by the trouble with coarse color noise patches in LR conversions. Note the blotchy yellow patches in the LR conversion on the left, absent in the C1 conversion on the right (click image for intended viewing size):


Finally, note the character of the noise in these crops. Again, the LR conversion is on the left, and the C1 conversion is on the right. Some of the blotchy color noise is also apparent in this crop of the LR image.



For the time being, C1 v4 beta is my RAW editor of choice for high ISO E-410 images despite the frequent crashes and need to convert to DNG in LR prior to opening files in C1. LR offers a terrific workflow and supports two of my cameras that C1 doesn't, but the coarse color noise just doesn't work for me.

Read More......

It's been a while since my last blog post. Work has been a killer. I am excited to see that Adobe has released an update to Lightroom and Adobe Camera RAW, especially since users in the Adobe forums are reporting that the update addresses the issues some of us noted with the LR 1.1 version. I was impressed with Adobe's responsiveness to product criticism by users. Looking forward to trying this new version!

Read More......

Impress Watch, a Japanese technology site, has shared a number of full-resolution ISO 100 samples from a pre-production FZ18. Their preview can be found here. With the exception of the three shots taken through a ton of atmospheric haze, the samples show excellent "per pixel detail" throughout the entire zoom range. In my opinion, a very impressive job by the lens considering the pixel pitch. The downsides to this camera are predictable (poor high ISO performance, poor dynamic range), but its good to see early indications that this camera will otherwise deliver the goods.

Direct links to full-resolution image samples:
4.6mm (full wide, 28mm equivalent) f/4
19.7mm f/7.1
31.3mm f/3.6
65.3mm f/3.6
82.8mm (full tele, 504mm equivalent) f/4, Sample 1
82.8mm f/4, Sample 2
82.8mm f/4, Sample 3

I'm really looking forward to this little camera.

Read More......

My two-year-old son Philip took this photo of his four-year-old brother Oliver today:



Every time I take photos, my boys want to do so as well. As you might imagine, it makes me nervous to see Oliver holding my Canon 5D; and Philip, you can forget about it! After reading the reviews, I finally got around to buying each of them a Fisher Price Kid-Tough Camera. These have been recently updated, such that the awful LCD is slightly larger and the awful quality images can be larger than 640 x 480 using interpolation. The boys absolutely love the cameras. They are easy to use, easy to hold, seem rugged, have a very nice viewfinder (considering), work with PC or Mac, accept an SD card (512MB card holds a couple thousand images at the standard 640x480 size), and did I mention the boys love them?

Here are some samples of what my budding young photographers did the first day they got a camera to call their own:

Philip's first slideshow.
Oliver's first slideshow.

If you decide to buy the the KidTough camera and this user review has helped you, you can help me by purchasing from Amazon after going there via the links below (one for the pink version, the other for blue).



Visiting the Amazon page using that link doesn't change your price but makes it so that Amazon shares a bit of the profits with me. I can honestly recommend Amazon for photography gear. In addition to competitive prices, they have great customer service and one of the best return policies around (though if the item is being sold on Amazon by a third paty seller, then the return policy of that seller would apply).

Read More......

Mike Johnston, in his short publication "Lens Bokeh Ratings," states the following generalizations about bokeh (out-of-focus blur):

I’ve found as a general rule that bokeh gets progressively more problematic:
• the larger the aperture
• the closer the focus
• the more distant the background
• the more contrasty the background

I think that when we discuss which lenses produce nice OOF blur (bokeh) compared to those that don't, we too often compare lenses under the worst of circumstances. For example, here are two shots of my sons with the 50/1.4 under nearly the worst of circumstances (Click on image for full size):





From these, one might conclude that the 50/1.4 harshly renders OOF blur (bokeh). This is far from true. Compare the OOF blur from the 50/1.4 at f/2.8-f/4 with any 50mm lens irrespective of price range, and it will compete well. Conversely, take the last generation pre-aspherical 35mm Summicron-M and shoot it wide open with a close subject and a distant, contrasty background. Even the so-called "King of Bokeh" will render a harsh OOF background blur under such circumstances.

Now see how the 50/1.4 renders an extremely challenging background at f/2.8:



Significant improvement. Now take a few moments to consider William Castleman's bokeh comparison of the 50/1.2L and 50/1.4.

An interesting consequence of this effect of stopping down on the quality of bokeh - independent of the quantity of background blur - can be seen in this bokeh comparison between the 35L on the 30D and 50/1.4 on the 5D.

Read More......

Not long ago, I posted the following:

"... my family recently moved from Baltimore City out to the Maryland suburbs, very close to this great park which is home (or hunting grounds) for a variety of wildlife including herons, beavers, swans, geese, and eagles. For the first time, I am tempted to get some equipment with true reach. Still not sure whether I should stay compact (eg. Panasonic FZ50) or think about carting around a long lens for the DSLR. If I weren't lugging around two small children with me, it would be a much easier decision!"

Shortly after that, I posted, based on what turned out to be an incorrect source, that Panasonic would be announcing new cameras on July 17th. I was hopeful that the new Panasonic cameras would include an FZ50 replacement, but I think that what they instead introduced is an even better solution for me.

Today, Panasonic revealed the DMC-FZ18. Amongst its many features, the ones which interest me the most are the following, some of which are unchanged from the FZ8:

- 18x f/2.8-4.2 zoom with focal length range equivalent to 28-504mm on a 35mm camera
- 8.1 MP 1/2.5" CCD sensor
- Image stabilization
- RAW + JPEG
- SD/SDHC storage
- Spot metering mode
- +/- 2 settings on NR, sat, contrast, sharpness (more control than FZ8)
- AE/AF lock
- Good EVF

The only other camera to include almost all of this is the Olympus SP-550, which has not gotten great reviews. It is clear that packing in this many features must come at the cost of certain compromises. However, Panasonic has consistently offered class-leading (IMHO) compact super-tele models, so I am confident that they made good compromises with this one.

Certainly this camera is in a different class than the FZ50, which is probably the finest currently-produced "bridge camera" available. I continue to look forward to what Panasonic has in store for the upgrade to that model. The FZ50 is more "DSLR-like" in both size and features, offering important advantages such as a larger sensor and mechanical zoom. If they keep the 1/1.8" sensor in the FZ50 replacement (assuming there is one) and extend the zoom range to 28-504mm equivalent, I'd have to imagine that there will be a size increase - or worse, a slower lens.

There are predictable downsides to this camera. Panasonic stuffed 8MP into a 1/2.5" sensor (24.7mm^2). By comparison, the FZ50 puts 10.1MP in a 1/1.8" sensor (38.2mm^2), a Canon 30D puts 8.2MP in a 337.5mm^2 sensor, and a Canon 5D puts 12.8MP in an 864mm^2 sensor. In terms of thousands of pixels per square mm then, they come out at roughly 324 (FZ18), 264 (FZ50), 24.3 (30D), and 14.8 (5D). With that little light hitting each pixel on the FZ18, it will inevitably be challenged in terms of dynamic range and noise, especially in low light conditions (see here). Making things worse, Panasonic has a heavy-handed, detail smearing approach to noise reduction (NR) using their Venus III in-camera processing engine, have been known to apply NR to RAW files (see here), and a very popular RAW processing engine has made heavy (IMO) NR mandatory for those who use it (see here).

I can't imagine that such a small sensor camera will be any good for birds in flight, but I do think it will satisfy my very limited wildlife requirements. The FZ18 will be available in September at a retail price of $399.95, and I will be buying one of the first ones I can get my hands on. Early adopters do get burned sometimes. However, Panasonic has been consistently good in this class of cameras, and the main predictable downsides are compromises which I am prepared to accept.

Read More......

Interesting brief article here on modern lens history from the perspective of a Minolta user.

Was sad to read "Canon lenses don't have a 'look'," but I'd probably agree with that. While individual Canons may have a look, I really can't think of a look that applies to the entire brand as a whole. I guess that could be considered a good thing or not. Thoughts?

Read More......

All images used with permission, courtesy of CameraQuest.

The Cosina Voigtlander 28/35 Mini-Finder was introduced at PMA in 2004, came in chrome or black, and contains brightlines for 28 and 35mm which are visible at all times. From what I can tell, this model has been discontinued, and only the larger viewfinders are being made. However, one can still purchase this viewfinder here from CameraQuest. I bought mine a few days ago and received it yesterday. For my purposes, this viewfinder makes an excellent companion for the Ricoh GX100. It's far more compact than the Ricoh EVF and avoids the lag associated with the image reaching an EVF. It is very bright for its size, and the image seen is sharp. Eye relief is just acceptable. Wearing eyeglasses, I can make out the entire 28mm brightlines just barely. Framing via the Voigt Mini-Finder is in 3x2 aspect ratio, so in practice the vertical FOV is greater than that included within the brightlines, whereas the horizontal FOV is accurate. It hasn't taken me long to adjust for this issue. The major limitation, of course, is that the VF has guides only for 28 and 35mm, not 24, 50, or 72mm (the other focal length equivalents supported by the GX100 step zoom). However, 90% of my photos are at 28 or 35mm, so this works well for me. For the other focal lengths, I will either compose with the LCD or simply estimate using the OVF. One final consideration is that this finder blocks the GX100 popup flash. I hardly ever use this flash, so it won't bother me. However, since the the viewfinder has to be physically removed to use the on-board flash, it is certainly something to consider.

I did consider buying the Ricoh GV-1 OVF, which is made for the GRD. However, as the GV-1 is offset to match the location of the GRD lens, it won't match the midline position of the GX100 hot shoe relative to the lens. Furthermore, the GV-1 is rather large and lacks a brightline for 35mm.

Here are a couple more views of the CV 28/35 Mini-Finder, again used with permission from Stephen Gandy from CameraQuest.


If I get a chance, I'll update this post later with some images of the CV 28/35 Mini-Finder mounted on the GX100.

Read More......

I've expressed my disappointment in the lack of compact digital cameras offering excellent image quality on several occasions. As I pointed out here, much of it has to do with sensor size. In particular, as a long-time Canon user I have been disappointed in the lack of innovation from Canon in the compact segment.

Canon has announced that it is building a new $451 million factory to build CMOS chips. From the Reuter's article: "The CMOS chips will be used in both single lens reflex (SLR) models as well as in some compact models. Canon's compact cameras have to date used a different type of image sensor called a charge-coupled device (CCD)." A CMOS versus CCD technical discussion is beyond the scope of this brief. What is interesting is that Canon plans to take control of its own sensor production for some compact models as well as to use the same sensor technology in some compact models as they do in DSLRs.

It remains to be seen whether Canon is bringing some of it compact camera sensor production in-house just to cut costs or also so that they can improve image quality. Hopefully they can do both.

Read More......

As some of you know, Panasonic has sent out invitations for a July 17 event in New York City at which they will be announcing new cameras. Some are speculating that we will see a lower priced DSLR offering. I'm hoping that we see some sort of upgrade on the FZ50. At any rate, I'm excited to see what they bring out. Panasonic has certainly been more innovative lately than Canon or Nikon in the compact digital camera space.

Read More......

Recently, Thom Hogan updated an article describing the sort of compact camera he wants. Many have also read of Mike Johnston's desire for a DMD. Thom believes that the technology is currently available to design a compact camera with a relatively fast (f/2.8-4) zoom and an APS-C sensor. I remain skeptical about this; however, thinking about these issues in camera design has me wondering again about my old friend, the bridge camera.

Before continuing, it would be helpful to review relative sensor sizes among currently available cameras. The following image demonstrates some common relative sensor sizes. Of course the actual sensors are smaller than depicted.

The entire image corresponds to the relative size of a "full frame" digital sensor such as the one in the Canon 5D. The red, blue, green, yellow, and purple lines correspond to the relative sizes of APS-C, 4/3", 1", 2/3", and 1/1.8" sensors respectively. The background image is there to illustrate the "crop factor," which is beyond the scope of my brief post here. The largest sensors in current, very compact cameras are around 1/1.7". Not too long ago, we had 2/3" sensors. Now, the next step up in sensor size from 1/1.7" (which would be between purple and yellow in the image above) is a huge leap to 4/3" (depicted above in blue). Comparing the smallest 4/3 system, the Olympus E-410 with kit lens, with DSLR systems based around the next step up in sensor size (APS-C) demonstrates the fact that smaller systems can be designed around smaller sensors. The, as of yet vaporware, Sigma DP1 promises a compact camera featuring an APS-C sensor. Likely this is possible in part since no mirror mechanism is incorporated, and in part because the DP1 features a prime lens of modest speed (f/4).

Why is there a leap from 1/1.7" to 4/3"? Surely a non-SLR digital camera with a 1" current-generation-technology sensor could be designed to be smaller than any DSLR + equivalent focal length range lens kit. Such a non-SLR camera would certainly provide better image quality and greater potential for shallow DOF than any current, smaller sensor compact digital cameras. The way I see it, these 1" sensor cameras could be made no larger than current "superzoom" cameras such as the Canon S5 IS or Olympus SP-550 by incorporating the tradeoff of a larger sensor and a more modest (2-3x) zoom range. Take, for example, my old Leica Digilux 2 (D2). The D2 could be made more compact today by 1) applying current generation design methods, and 2) making the lens non-fixed in length. The second of those two changes is not something I'd want, but it's worth mentioning that it could be done. In addition, one could presumably increase the D2 sensor size from 2/3" to 1" without increasing the overall size (largely determined by the lens size), if one were willing to accept a slower zoom, such as f/2.8-3.5 rather than f/2-2.4.

It makes no sense to me that we have only cameras with sensor sizes of 1/2.5", 1/1.8", 1/1.7", 4/3", 1.8" (APS-C), and 35mm. There is a large gap between 1/1.7" and 4/3" that is waiting to be plugged with 1" sensors. I am confident that bridge cameras derived from such sensors could be profitable in 2007 and beyond.

Read More......

Continuing on with GX100 coverage, I was glad to see another professional review today, this one from Popular Photography. Their summary statement was as follows:

"The GX100 is a highly competent camera that's easy and fun for both the casual shooter and the serious enthusiast to use. We like it. But we'd like it more if it cost a little less and had less noise at high ISOs."

Compared to the G7, they had the following to say:

"The Ricoh scores higher on image quality -- in both noise and resolution -- and offers RAW capture, absent on the Canon."

Overall, I found it to be a clearly positive review and worth a read.

Read More......

I'm beginning to settle in with the Ricoh GX100 in a way that I never realized with the Canon G7. The following is just a simple photo which highlights a few aspects that make the Ricoh special amongst current compact digital camera offerings.

(Click for full size)

The first and perhaps the most significant feature is that the zoom range starts at 24mm (35mm film equivalent), which is the focal length I used here. Second, it gives one access to the RAW file, which I needed in order to bring push the exposure enough to selectively bring out some shadow detail to match the scene as I recalled it. The image stabilization performs well, allowing me to get a blur-free ISO 80 image in this relatively low light. Finally, it is very compact, facilitating the important matter of having the camera present.

As an aside, my family recently moved from Baltimore City out to the Maryland suburbs, very close to this great park which is home (or hunting grounds) for a variety of wildlife including herons, beavers, swans, geese, and eagles. For the first time, I am tempted to get some equipment with true reach. Still not sure whether I should stay compact (eg. Panasonic FZ50) or think about carting around a long lens for the DSLR. If I weren't lugging around two small children with me, it would be a much easier decision!

Read More......

My dad recently asked me why I generally carry a four-year-old camera, the Leica Digilux 2 (D2), when I have several more recent bodies to choose from. Clearly I am not alone. The Leica D2 and its Panasonic clone, the LC1, continue to find themselves in the hands of photographers who own much newer and more expensive equipment. Despite known sensor susceptibility to failure, these cameras also command a very high cost on the used market considering their age. They are 5 megapixel cameras, only go up to ISO 400, take about 5 seconds to buffer a RAW image, and don't autofocus very quickly. Why then do we carry them? Some love the appearance, feel, controls, and optically-great DC Vario Summicron lens. I carry it for the following reasons:

- 28-90mm (equivalent) is a nearly perfect focal length range for my general needs.
- With its relatively large (2/3") sensor, the D2/LC1 can achieve some nice portrait background blur at 90mm and f/2.4.
- The f/2-2.4 zoom is nice and fast.
- The relatively large pixel pitch makes for good dynamic range and tone separation.
- The noise at higher ISO values has a more pleasing quality than that of any other small-sensor digital camera I have tried.
- There's something about a mechanically-linked zoom that just feels right.

No small-sensor digital camera currently made can replace this one in my kit. Until now, no cameras with larger sensors and an equivalent zoom range have been compact enough to replace it. None are as quiet, which is another thing I appreciate about the D2. I do have my eye on the new Olympus E-410 with kit lens, which looks to be a viable alternative in most respects. If you are interested in learning more about the Digilux 2, I recommend the following two reviews:

http://photo.net/equipment/leica/digilux2/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-digilux2-part1.shtml

Read More......

The new Adobe Lightroom update is said to have better noise reduction and sharpening tools than the previous version. From what I can tell, substantial luminance noise reduction (NR) is being applied to RAW conversions, even when luminance NR is set to zero. The result is a significant loss of fine detail and a "watercolor" appearance, even at low ISOs. If you want your Ricoh GX100 RAW conversions to look like in-camera Panaleica JPEGs, then Lightoom 1.1 may be the one for you. I'm really disappointed in this release. Hopefully I'm missing something here and someone will let me know how to disable this nasty noise reduction.

Addendum: It has been suggested to me that one can disable this noise reduction by switching 'off' the Detail section. I'll try this later and report back.

Addendum #2: That didn't work. I have been trying to adjust settings to overcome this problem, but I have been unable to do so. The best I can do seems to be turning down 'Luminance' noise reduction to '0' and holding back on the 'Detail' slider.

In following two screenshots, Lightroom 1.1 is shown on the right, with sharpening settings at default other than 'Detail' being increased to '100.' Luminance NR is set to '0'. On the left is a conversion using the older Adobe RAW engine with identical sharpening and NR settings. Click on the screenshot to view at full size. Some browsers may require a second click to get to 100% size.

Here is the Digilux 2 ISO 200 screenshot. Note how the character of the noise has been altered (ruined).



Here is the GX100 screenshot. The changes here are more subtle, but there is a definite loss of detail in the Lightroom 1.1 conversion. What concerns me though is not so much detail lost by LR 1.1, but the unnatural way in which the fine detail is rendered. The "unnatural" quality is no doubt worse by cranking up the 'Detail' setting, but the goal in this experiment was to approximate a similar level of detail between the two images.



Any oher thoughts or tips about how to overcome this issue? I can live with mandatory NR in a RAW converter. C1 has this as well. However from my standpoint, Lightroom 1.1 is too heavy-handed in its approach to NR at the minimum setting thereof.

Addendum #3: I've been wondering how this issue seemed to be getting so little attention. Thanks to rstockm for point out this thread in the Adobe forums, which contains posts from a number of photographers regarding this issue.

Below are two full-size GX100 files (about 5MB each) demonstrating the issue. They were both preocessed from RAW using the same default sharpening settings, except the 'Detail' setting was increased to '100' in LR 1.1 to try to match the detail of the other file. If you have a fast internet connection and would like to know more about the issue, try downloading them and comparing them in various regions.

Click here to download the image processed using LR 1.1.
Click here to download the same image processed using the previous ACR engine.

I recommend trying to process the two images linked above to see how they respond to further noise reduction, sharpening, levels/curves, etc. The "problems" (as I view them) become more obvious with any further manipulation.

Featured Comment by anonymous:

I'm seeing exactly what you're seeing, Amin. I saw it the second the first images opened in the new version of Lightroom. I hadn't noticed the problem in ACR 4.1., because I was processing everying in Lightroom 1.0. Yesterday, I ran files through ACR 4.1. and was shocked by the results.

I thought, at first, that only my small sensor work was reflecting the problem, but if I go through the imported Lightroom database there isn't a file that hasn't suffered as a result of the new algorythm - from 6 mp captures, through 10 mp, 12 mp and 16 mp.

Fortunately, I kept version 4 of ACR and version 1 of Lightroom, so with these back online I am able to work on. What shocks me is that the Adobe big guns, Thomas Knoll et al, sound as though they are satisfied with the new look. To me, it's the end of any pretence of photographic veracity for the digital image.

As for the new controls, if someone tells me that "Detail" is to put back in what was taken out, again, I'll lose it. And don't get me started on the "Clarity" slider. Have you seen some of the disasters being produced by cranking that Muvver to 100!? Good grief...

If the results of digital photography had always looked as they do after Lightroom 1.1. processing, I would have walked away from the photography business a decade ago. I am very worried that this 'new look' could become an accepted standard in our work. It's just damn wrong.

Read More......

My RAW processor of choice is Phase One's Capture One (C1) software. With the 5D, I find that C1 handles color (using a custom profile), noise, and detail more to my taste than anything else I have tried, all the while providing an efficient and intuitive workflow. For my cameras which are not supported by C1 (Leica Digilux 2, Leica D-LUX 2, and Ricoh GX100), I continue to search for a similar solution.

Adobe Lightroom has an intuitive workflow and some unique features, including some nice tools for tuning shadow and highlight detail and great control over black and white conversions. One area I have found it to be lacking is in the way it handles noise and sharpening. I was therefore excited to read that the new release, version 1.1, is said by Adobe to be improved in this regard. I was also pleased to see added support for the Ricoh GX100. I'm looking forward to trying it and hope to hear feedback from some of you as well.

Read More......