Well, it looks like it may be a while before I can post any good news about the GX100. The unit I got from Adorama frontfocuses horribly. At "infinity focus" it focuses two feet away. Set to snap focus, it does the same. Set to full auto, no difference. The fact that the camera had signs of use when it arrived (fingerprints on the LCD, scratches on the battery) makes me wonder whether someone else had the same problem with the autofocus and returned it before it got to me. I'm a little put off by this and will take a couple days to consider whether to send it for a refund or an exchange.

Addendum - I decided to go ahead and exchange it. Hopefully Adorama will have some stock and get me the replacement soon.

Addendum #2 - Sadly, Adorama is out of stock again. In the meantime, I have having a great time with a D-LUX 2 recently given to me by my father. It's nice to have RAW and a wide angle in my compact. I am looking into GX100 stock at PopFlash.

Addendum #3 - PopFlash has lots of stock, and I just ordered a GX100 kit from them. From what I have read in the DPR forums, PopFlash seems to have very content customers. I hope to be one of them soon =).

Read More......

As I have posted before, the GX100 is very attractive to me on the basis of its wide angle capability, RAW mode, and step zoom. However, Flickr samples seem to show that at ISO 80 the Ricoh GX100 produces far noisier default JPEG results than my Canon G7, despite the latter preserving at least as much detail. The GX100 also seems to produce less vibrant color, and I have seen some nasty CA in some of the samples. However, with proper RAW processing, I am hopeful that the GX100 will approach the image quality of the G7. With that in mind, I have ordered the GX100 (without EVF) from Adorama and am looking forward to it shipping on Tuesday morning.

I will be doing a detailed head-to-head comparison of the GX100 and G7 and will post my results here. If you have any specific recommendations or requests for things you would like me to test or compare, please leave a comment to let me know.

Addendum: I also plan to borrow my dad's Leica D-LUX 2 (same as Panasonic LX1) so I can compared the GX100 processed RAWs to the Leicasonic output. In my mind, the GRD/GX100, G7, and LX1/2 are high on the list of compact cameras which offer flexible photographic control.

Read More......

The "megapixel war" continues. This week, both Panasonic and Casio have announced 12 megapixel sensors in their newest compact models. In general, high megapixels on a small sensor means small pixels, which translates to higher noise. While many people realize this, fewer realize that another sacrifice being made is in dynamic range. Unfortunately, none of the review sites do a great job of analyzing dynamic range performance, and few buyers consider this characteristic in choosing a compact camera. However, poor dynamic range performance forces one to choose to sacrifice either highlights or shadows when encountering a contrasty scene. The resulting dynamic range is poor, and though the tests don't show it well, the photos certainly do.

Here is an example of a quick snap with my G7, a camera into which Canon has stuffed 10 megapixels into a relatively small 1/1.8" sensor.

The colors are true and accurate, and as you can see from the full size image, the resolution is excellent. However, the highlights have been hopelessly blown. This is undoubtedly my fault, not the G7's. I could have exposed for the highlights by consulting the histogram. I could have used more negative exposure compensation and set the in-camera contrast lower knowing that the G7 has a tendency to clip highlights in such challenging conditions. However, I can tell you with complete certainty, than none of my other cameras would have clipped the highlights so severely in that image.

By comparison, here are two photos taken under similar lighting conditions with my four-year-old Leica D2. The full size versions can be viewed here and here.



Like the G7, the D2 has a small sensor. The D2 sensor is slightly larger, at 2/3"; the key difference is that it has only 5 megapixels. As a result, the pixel pitch is several times larger than that of the G7. The fact that, at the pixel level, G7 noise is not significantly different from D2 noise is a testament to the dramatic improvement of sensor technology since 2003. However, in the examples shown above, the D2 has nicely captured the dynamic range of a scene the G7 could not hope to have handled. Furthermore, both D2 examples shown here were shot at default JPEG settings. One can gain even more flexibility in dealing with dynamic range by shooting in RAW mode on the D2. Sadly, Canon has removed this option from their compact cameras, further compromising the already weak dynamic range performance.

Provided that the lens can resolve the detail, a 10MP sensor has enough pixels to capture an image from which one can crop out and discard 75% of the picture and still be left with an area that can be printed to 8x10" with good results. Most of us don't need more pixels in out pocket cameras. Poor dynamic range performance has been a weakness of digital photography since its inception, will flaw a photo even at 4x6" print sizes, and is largely ignored by makers of compact cameras as they compete for our money. Just something to consider when shopping for our next compact digital camera.

Read More......

My brother Bijan recently asked me why I shoot RAW whenever possible. Sometime in the near future, I plan to explain that here in detail with accompanying example photos. For now, I'd like to explain two concerns about the availability of the RAW format in current digital cameras.

First of all, what is RAW? Most digital photographers shoot in JPEG, a lossy compression format. When we shoot JPEG, we choose aperture, ISO, shutter speed, focal length, composition, and perspective (ie, where we stand) prior to taking the shot. The camera takes the information recorded by the sensor (ie, the light gathered by the sensor) and, based on our pre-selected settings, applies adjustments including white balance, sharpening, noise reduction, contrast curves, and saturation; it then turns the image into a smaller file by eliminating much of the "extra" information that is less necessary for the photo to have the intended final look. This resulting compressed file format is JPEG. JPEG is a great format for people who don't want to do this processing by hand or don't know how to process, though I should note that many desktop applications can process for you as well as or better than your camera can. Being smaller, JPEG files keep storage costs and camera buffer needs lower. When we shoot RAW, we make the same decisions about aperture, ISO, shutter speed, focal length, composition, and perspective prior to taking the shot. After the shot, all information gathered from light striking the sensor while the shutter is open is stored for us to process later. In other words, we save the "raw" data. The advantage of this is that we get to make a lot of decisions after the shot. For an extreme and obvious example, let's say we shoot in JPEG mode and take a black and white photo with in camera settings for contrast and noise reduction set to "high." We get home and decide we wish the image were in color. Too bad. Wish the image had more detail? No problem, just decrease the noise reduction. Oops the camera's processing engine permanently through away that detail while it was trying to keep noise down. Blow some highlights? If only the contrast setting hadn't been quite so high... If only I had shot RAW. All of those decisions could have been made later, and I'd have my color, noisy but detailed, well-exposed shot. Many advantages of RAW are far more subtle. There are some other advantages of JPEG as well. Both of those issues will have to wait for another installment. Now back to my concerns about RAW.

RAW is being dropped from advanced compact cameras at an alarming rate. Canon and Nikon have abandoned it. Many of us think that this has been done in order to steer enthusiasts to DSLRs where we will spend thousands on lenses. Others feel that RAW files are being kept from us so we won't see how noisy these tiny, pixel-stuffed sensors are before in-camera noise reduction is applied. I also wonder whether companies are leaving out RAW in order to save money on hardware costs. RAW file capture and storage typically necessitates a larger memory buffer for reasonable continuous shooting rates. Whatever the reason, it is important to understand that RAW is not being kept from us because the cameras don't "make" a RAW file. When light hits the sensor, RAW data is recorded. They just need to fork it over. This point is illustrated by a Russian hack which makes RAW files available on Canon digital cameras with DIGIC II processors from which Canon had disabled end user access to RAW data. Many held out hope that Canon would keep RAW in their flagship prosumer G-series. No such luck. Canon's Chuck Westfall explained that this omission was a consequence of the pixel pitch being so small on the G7. By shoving 10 million pixels onto a 1/1.8" sensor, Canon made the G7 pixels so small and noisy that no RAW processor can eek more out of them than Canon's on-board DIGIC III processor can. I won't argue against the implication that little pixels are no good. Two of my cameras (Leica D2 and Canon 5D) have a large pixel pitch, and I think that when one compares them to cameras of the same technology generation, one can really tell the difference. Larger pixels tend to capture a greater dynamic range as well as to limit the amount of noise. I'm getting off topic though. Users of the tiny-pixelled G7 would still benefit from access to their RAW files. First of all, there is nothing magic about the DIGIC III processor. It is not more powerful than my Mac Pro, and it's processing algorithms will be dated as fast as Canon can produce the DIGIC IV. Therefore, to imply that the G7 can get as much or more out of the RAW files than we can is downright silly. Second, RAW is not only about how much detail or how little noise we can extract. It is about flexibility. When I shoot ISO 400 with the G7, the camera applies a certain amount of noise reduction (NR) to create a balance between detail preserved (NR destroys detail) and noise eliminated. Each camera's JPEG engine does this differently. For example, Panasonic's Venus III engine has been widely criticized for striking a balance that favors excessive noise reduction with resulting smearing of details. NR also creates the Fuji compact camera "watercolor effect" at very high ISO. Getting back to the G7, what if I want to preserve more detail at the expense of greater than usual noise for ISO 400? Often with black and white conversion, I choose such a compromise since color noise is not a factor in B&W. RAW would give me that option. Mr. Westfall's explanation is not good enough for me.

Now for the main reason I am posting this. It has recently come to my attention that, even in the cameras which still offer RAW, our RAW may not be as RAW as we think it is. I was reading about image quality comparisons between the Panasonic DMC-LX1 (branded by Leica as the D-LUX 2) and the DMC-LX2 (branded by Leica as the D-LUX 3). These two cameras are interesting to me because they are compact, offer RAW, offer a choice of 16:9, 3:2, and 4:3 aspect ratios, and have a wide angle lens (starting at 28mm when shooting in wide aspect format). The LX2 has more pixels, which as noted above is not always a good thing when sensor size limited. However, I was intrigued by the fact that LX2 RAW files, at typically between 19-20MB each, are considerably larger than my 5D RAW files. This prompted me to do a little digging. One reason for the LX2 RAW files to be so large is that they contain 16-bit color as opposed to 12-bit as in most RAW files. The other thing I found out about LX2 RAW files is more ominous. Panasonic appears to have applied a considerable amount of NR to the RAW files themselves! This reduces the amount of shadow noise considerably but also reduces the low contrast detail available in those shadows. Björn (viztyger) on DPReview was kind enough to make available his LX2 RAW analyses in those forums. Here is his post showing identically processed RAW files from the LX1 and LX2. I think the results speak for themselves. It is clear that the LX1 crop contains noise that the LX2 crop does not. Many would find this noise objectionable, and yet they could largely remedy the situation by applying NR software during or after RAW conversion on their computer. On the other hand, the shadow detail which is present in the LX1 crop is irrecoverable in the LX2 photo. No software could restore it.

This raises the question as to whether Panasonic is an evil company that is alone in violating the sanctity of RAW, whether everyone is doing it, or whether I have just been thinking about RAW the wrong way. One thing to consider is that the processing of recorded light data is not limited to a single processing engine such as DIGIC III or Venus III. There is so-called "on-chip" processing on the sensor itself. It has never been clear to me whether to think of this processing as distinct from what the main processing engine does or not. In other words, I wonder whether "on-chip" NR permanently eliminates detail the way other NR does, or alternatively whether it could somehow be improving signal to noise capture at the source. If anyone knows, please tell me. As to whether "everyone is doing it," it is becoming clear to be that the answer is probably "yes" to one extent or another. In a 2006 thread in the Rob Galbraith forums, Canon's Chuck Westfall had the following to say: "...This dates back to previous discussions on this board (circa 11/2003) where I stated that .CRW files from early EOS Digital SLRs (D30, D60, 10D, Digital Rebel/300D) were minimally sharpened in camera. Canon Inc. engineers confirmed this to be true. Conversely, no sharpening of any kind is applied to raw images captured as .TIF (as in EOS-1D, EOS-1Ds) or .CR2 (EOS 5D, 20D, Digital Rebel XT, 1D Mark II, 1D Mark II N, and 1Ds Mark II)." He went on to add, "To the best of my knowledge, there is no softening or smoothing per se on Canon RAW images. However, it's clear that on-chip noise reduction is performed prior to exporting the image data to the camera's image processing system." Although they are rascals for tampering with my RAW, I do respect Canon for having a prominent representative answer the tough questions posed in a public, third party forum. What about the number 2 producer of digital cameras? Jim Cockfield, who informed me of the aforementioned comments from Mr. Westfall, also gave me this link, which suggests that as of 2005 there was evidence that Nikon was modifying RAW files.

While every camera manufacturer's offered RAW is clearly more raw than their in-camera JPEGs, I now understand that not all RAW is equally raw. From now on when I shop for a new camera, I will not only have to ask "Does this camera have RAW?" but also "How RAW is it?"

Read More......

"There's a special pleasure in shooting with primes. When you're restricted to one focal length, you can learn to see in it: visualize the picture even before putting the camera to your eye. I'm sure that with experience and talent this works for zooms too; I've just never gotten that far." -Petteri Sulonen

In still photography, a prime lens is a lens with a fixed focal length. A zoom lens, on the other hand, has a variable focal length. Zoom lenses, due to their greater versatility, have largely supplanted prime lenses. However, with the ever increasing affordability and thus popularity of DSLR photography, many of us who previously shot with fixed lens cameras now have the option of trying different types of interchangeable lenses. Amongst these, prime lenses offer a number of clear advantages.

1) They are lighter and more compact.
2) They often have simple designs, which are optically less compromising than zoom lenses. Modern zooms are very, very good. However, the greater the zoom range (ie, 4x), the more compromise is typically involved. For example, the wonderful Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, which costs about $900, has a fair amount of barrel distortion at 24mm; whereas the EF 24mm f/2.8 prime lens, which costs about $200, has none.
3) More often than not, inexpensive primes offer better image quality than inexpensive zooms.
4) They are usually faster (greater maximum aperture) than zoom lenses of similar cost.

In addition to these quantifiable qualities, primes offer an additional advantage which is much less clear. As Petteri mentioned, there is a "special pleasure" in shooting them. With a prime, a given focal length takes on the charming character of familiarity. A prime can also encourage one to see in a certain way. For example, when I go out with the versatile 24-105mm zoom lens, which covers a focal range from ultra-wide to moderate telephoto, I have a tendency to stay further away from my subject and telephoto my way in. The effect is that I am less interactive, my perspective renders subjects more flat, and I end up including less environment in my candid photos of people. Each of these three factors has a negative influence on my shooting outcomes, and together their negative effects are additive if not synergistic. Now many zoom lens users would be quick to point out that not a single one of those effects is due to any inherent weakness of my zoom, and they would be correct. After all, if I mentally tape my zoom at 28mm, then it effectively becomes a 28mm f/4 prime, and not a bad one at that. However, my mind is weak, and I am guessing that I am not the only one. Furthermore, shooting with primes has definitely affected the way I use my zooms. These days, having learned from a couple of my prime lenses, I make better use of my feet, spend far less time on the telephoto end of my zooms, and take in more of the big picture. Even so, I suspect it will be many years before I progress to the point where prime lenses no longer push me to see better.

Amongst the more objective advantages of shooting with primes, the size and weight advantage is the most significant one from my standpoint. Today I visited the Baltimore Inner Harbor as well as Fells Point with my two boys, Oliver and Philip, aged four and two. For nearly half of my photos today, I was either carrying Philip in my left arm or holding his hand. There is simply no way I could have managed with a big heavy zoom like the 24-70L, and the smaller 24-105L would have been pushing it. Managing the 5D with a 28mm f/2.8 prime attached was a genuine pleasure. It would have been no problem to throw a 50mm prime in my jacket pocket had I wanted the security of being able to change focal lengths. However, I found that once I was in the 28mm mindset, I didn't even think of changing lenses.

Over in the DPR Canon Lens Forum, two common discussion threads are "Which one lens should I buy for my DSLR?" and "I'm leaving Canon for Nikon because Canon doesn't have an 18-200mm lens." The market dominance of zooms over primes has been firmly established, and I'd be the first to admit that prime lenses aren't for everyone. However, I would encourage any DSLR user to at least try taking pictures with a prime.

Right now, 28mm is my favorite focal length. If you are a zoom user, you might not have a favorite focal length. Maybe you think all the focal lengths are special, or perhaps none of them. However, if you give a couple inexpensive prime lenses a chance, I'll bet that before long you'll have a favorite focal length too.

Read More......

This is going to sound like a contradiction to my last post titled "I wish Canon would make better small lenses." I am greatly enjoying my cheap new lens, the EF 28mm f/2.8, which arrived in the mail yesterday. I dsicussed my rationale for purchasing this lens here. The 28/2.8 is so light and compact, it's almost like there's nothing on the 5D at all. It's just long enough to use the left hand for balance. The manual focus ring, while nothing great, is leaps ahead of that found on similarly inexpensive Canon lenses like the 50mm f/1.8 and the EF-S 18-55mm "kit lens." I like what I see so far in regular use, nice color and contrast stopped down. I haven't had reason to shoot it wide open yet. This lens has excellent flare resistance. Edge and corner sharpness are better than most reviews had seemed to indicate. Unlike my 24-105L, which has considerable barrel distortion on the wide end, this lens is nearly distortion free. For non speed freaks, this would be a very nice normal lens for a Rebel XT or XTi, providing great image characteristics in an extremely light and compact combination. For the 5D, I think the 28mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4 will make a terrific light kit for my style of shooting.

Downsides are as follows: Autofocus, while pretty fast, makes an annoying high-pitched noise. Lots of light falloff at maximum aperture. Build quality is overall cheap. As stated in the previous post, I really wish Canon would improve the build quality on these small primes.

A few examples from yesterday and today:

Read More......

Canon puts a great deal of importance on creating great fast lenses. In my opinion, they don't put enough on creating great small lenses. Fast lenses require a large entrance pupil and as a result have increased size and weight. Seems that most Canon users in the DPR forums are willing to tote the big, heavy glass in order to have the best image quality possible. However, bigger and heavier does not necessarily mean better image quality; it only means faster.

For instance, compare Leica M series 50mm lenses with Canon EF 50mm lenses. Leica has f/1 (Noctilux), f/1.4 (Summilux), f/2 (Summicron), and f/2.8 (Elmarit) M-series lenses at the focal length of 50mm. Owning no Leica M lenses, I don't know much about then; hopefully those who use them will correct any errors I make. The less fast Leica M 50s are more compact and less expensive (though still expensive by non-Leica standards). However, virtually all of these lenses are optically excellent and well made. Now the Canon lenses. The EF 50mm f/1.2L is fast, optically excellent (by my standards), expensive, relatively heavy, and has a wonderful build quality. The EF 50mm f/1.4 is optically excellent (my standards), is far less expensive, somewhat less heavy, and has a mediocre build quality. The EF 50mm f/1.8 II is optically very good, cheap, light, and poorly built. Manually focusing the 50mm f/1.8 II Canon is a depressing experience. Unlike the first version of this lens, there is no distance scale and the mount has been changed from metal to plastic. I have no experience with the EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro lens and will therefore leave it out of this discussion.

By the nature of their design requirements, compact lenses must be slower. However, they do not have to be optically inferior or cheaply made. The Canon compact primes are not that optically inferior (this is subjective), though one might argue that they are not as optically good as they could be. However, they are somewhat cheaply made.

In some ways, the digital era has made faster lenses more important than ever. By far, the majority of Canon DSLRs sold have a crop sensor, making faster lenses the only way to get the shallow DOF that was possible with 35mm film cameras. However, for full frame digital users, faster lenses may be less important than ever since current sensor technology makes it possible to shoot with low noise at high ISO.

I hope that if and when Canon decides to replace some of their most compact and light primes (EF 35mm f/2, 28mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, etc), that they raise the build quality a lot, raise the image quality some, and charge more accordingly. I'd also like to see them improve their compact zoom lenses.

Read More......

I've had a Powershot G7 for some time now, and for the most part I've been lamenting its lack of wide angle, RAW, and an accurate viewfinder. I have been seriously considering selling it to buy a Ricoh GX100, which has all of those things. Well, I'm happy to report that the G7 has really been growing on me. As an exercise, I've been using it with the focal length fixed at 35mm, using zone focusing for street shots (manually focused to one notch over 2 meters with aperture at f/4). This has really given me a new appreciation for this camera.

Read More......

I've been thinking a lot recently about buying a new lens for street shooting with the 5D. The 24-105mm f/4L is incredibly versatile but makes for a heavy combination with the 5D at 3.5 lbs combined (2lbs for the 5D and 1.5 lbs for the 24-105L). It's also a somewhat imposing lens to have pointed in one's direction. I enjoy using the 5D with the 50mm f1.4 but want something wider. I've now settled on one of the oldest and possibly the most forgotten lens in the EF lineup, the 28mm f/2.8. Surprisingly, there are some reports that this lens is a better performer on full frame than on crop bodies (excepting light falloff of course), which would go a ways towards explaining why it has been largely forgotten in this digital age.

Why the EF 28mm f/2.8?
- At 1.7" long and 0.41 lbs, this lens is tiny.
- At an average used price of around $120, it's cheap. No Canon autofocus lens with a metal mount is cheaper.
- 28mm is an awesome focal length.
- It has a distance scale, great for setting up to take quick shots from the hip.
- Markus Hartel uses one.

Click here for an interesting comparison of 13 lenses at 28mm, tested on a Canon 5D. I think the EF 28mm f/2.8 does pretty well.

That's all for now. More when I get the lens!

Read More......

The photography groups at Virb, while small, have been a good influence. I recently joined a street photography group, which has gotten me interested in this type of photography. The idea of photographing strangers without their express permission disturbs me. I'm more comfortable taking photos of places that happen to contain people rather than focusing on the people themselves; yet it's generally the people that make the picture interesting. Coincidentally, I stumbled today across Markus Hartel's site while googling for information about compact, wide Canon lenses. Markus is a street photographer in New York City, and his work is inspirational. It also reminds me just how much I miss New York.

Read More......

I've enjoyed blogging about photography on Virb, but unfortunately that site does not allow blog comments by non-Virb members. While I think Virb is a great social network and hope to see it grow, I am moving the blog to Blogger so that anyone can comment.

Read More......

2004 was the year of the bridge camera. DSLR kits cost more than many enthusiasts were willing to spend, and compact digicams didn't offer high enough image quality or flexibility to satisfy. Hence the bridge camera.

Some of the exciting cameras of that era, each of which featured Sony's 8 megapixel 2/3" sensor, which replaced their earlier 5MP 2/3" sensor:

- Nikon Coolpix 8700: 35-280mm (8x) f/2.8-4.2 zoom, 113 x 78 x 105 mm (4.4 x 3.1 x 4.1 in), 512 g (1.1 lb)
- Canon PowerShot Pro1: 28-200mm (7x) f/2.8-3.5 zoom, 118 x 72 x 90 mm (4.6 x 2.8 x 3.5 in), 640 g (1.4 lb)
- Minolta DiMAGE A2: 28-200mm (7x) f/2.8-3.5 mechanical zoom, 117 x 85 x 114 mm (4.6 x 3.4 x 4.5 in), 654 g (1.4 lb)
- Olympus C-8080 WZ: 28-140mm (5x) f/2.4-3.5 zoom, 124 x 85 x 99 mm (4.9 x 3.3 x 3.9 in) 724 g (1.6 lb)
- Sony DSC-F828: 28-200mm (7x) f/2-2.8 mechanical zoom, 134 x 91 x 156 mm (5.3 x 3.6 x 6.1 in), 906 g

These cameras replaced similar bridge cameras, and in some cases were replaced by other similar models. However for the most part, as enthusiasts have migrated to DSLRs, the bridge camera been a slowly dying category. No doubt camera companies are enjoying this migration, as a result of which profits from lens sales are increasing.

There are a few recent bridge cameras, most notably the Sony DSC-R1, which features a very large (DSLR-like) sensor and a stunning 24-120mm f/2.8-4.8 Zeiss zoom. By adopting one of the great advantages of the DSLR, a large sensor, it lost one of the typical advantages of the bridge camera, small size. That said, the R1 is an undoubtedly compelling all-in-one solution. However, even Sony lacks a current bridge camera in its lineup. Fujifilm continues to offer cameras in this category, though I have not been excited by their recent offerings. Sadly Canon, Olympus, and Minolta (now Konica-Minolta) have altogether abandoned the category. In addition to pulling out of this market, Canon and Nikon seem to be going even further, by "dumbing down" their compact cameras to make them even less "bridge-like." For example, RAW capability has been notably absent from recent "advanced" compact models from these dominant companies.

What makes the bridge camera special?

Advantages over typical compact cameras:
- With relatively large sensors and fast lenses for compact cameras, bridge cameras produce images with more depth than the average compact camera. With a given number of pixels, larger sensors (hence larger pixels) also generally translates to less noise, better per-pixel sharpness, better color, and improved dynamic range.
- The electronic viewfinder (EVF), while not as clear as a nice DSLR optical viewfinder, allows the user to compose accurately with the camera held to the eye, which is typically a more stable position than composing with an LCD.
- With the somewhat larger size, bridge cameras are generally more comfortable to hold than compact digicams and have room for better manual controls, in some cases including a mechanically-linked zoom.

Advantages over DSLRs:
- As a result of using sensors that are significantly smaller than DSLR sensors, bridge cameras can be far more compact and less expensive than a DSLR coupled to an interchangeable lens of a similar speed and zoom range.
- Lacking a mirror mechanism, bridge cameras can operate silently and typically feature a movie mode.
- Lack of interchangeable lenses prevents accumulation of dust on the sensor in most cases.

In case it isn't clear, I am a big fan of the bridge camera. I will always have a compact digicam for when I must travel light, and I will probably always have an interchangeable lens camera for when ultimate quality is sought. However, most days I like to carry an all-in-one solution that lacks the bulk and weight of my DSLR, has excellent ergonomics, and has advanced features. Right now, the camera that offers all this in my daily routine is the Leica Digilux 2 (D2). With a fast, sharp (f/2-2.4) 28-90mm mechanically-linked zoom lens, largish sensor (2/3"), manual controls for aperture and shutter speed, nice EVF, silent operation, RAW capability, and integrated bounce flash, this four-year-old (2003) 5MP digital camera is the best solution for my current needs. I know it could be done better with 2007 technology. For example, I would be the first one in line if Canon released a Pro1 Mk II with the following specs:
- Similar size/weight as Pro1
- 24-70mm mechanically-linked f2-2.8L image stabilized zoom lens
- DIGIC III (or better) and RAW capability
- New 2/3 inch sensor, designed by Canon
- Native 3:2 aspect ratio
- High quality EVF
- Manual controls for aperture, shutter speed, and ISO

Unfortunately, the chance of Canon releasing such a model are similar to the chance that my wife will surprise me with a Leica M8 and Summicron-M 28mm f/2 ASPH as an anniversary gift this year (zero possibility, in case you were wondering).

For now, I will continue to greatly enjoy my D2. If anyone has any further thoughts regarding the bridge camera, I'd love to hear them!

Read More......

That's the rap. I guess it depends on one's definition of soft. I was looking at a few of my recent shots with this lens wide open (at f/1.4) and thought I'd share a few full-res examples. Each was taken on a 5D with the 50 at f1.4. Each resized version looks soft (resized by PBase) and is followed by a link to the full-res version. Vignetting has been left uncorrected. Shots were processed from RAW in C1 with that application's "Standard Look" sharpening. The second and third had Contrast at -10 and Saturation at +30 during RAW processing.



Full-size (large): http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=490729936&size=o

My wife didn't want me to post this one because her eye was swollen (allergies):



Full-size (large): http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=490747817&size=o



Full-size (large): http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=490757093&size=o

The 50/1.4 gets sharper stopped down; but wide open, it can still deliver.

Read More......

I've written up a user review of the Tamron SP AF17-35MM F/2.8-4 lens here.

Read More......

I just joined a Virb group called BOKEH. What the heck is bokeh? Read on.



Boke (pronounced and spelled alternately as "bokeh") refers to the characteristics of the out-of-focus portion of an image. It refers to the entire blurry area (both foreground and background), not just the round highlights.

John Kennerdell, the author of one of three articles in PHOTO Techniques (PT) that introduced boke to the West, had the following to say on Mike Johnston's blog: "In retrospect, in those articles in PT we should have introduced one more Japanese word: 'pinto' (prononunced 'peen-toe,' not like the beans). It means in-focus. Anything in a photo that isn't pinto is boke. It really is that simple."

It is apparently difficult to design lenses which do a good job handling the in-focus/sharp areas of a photo (pinto) while also nicely rendering the out-of-focus regions (boke). The quality with which a lens draws out-of-focus areas cannot be objectively measured as we do lens characteristics pertaining to in-focus regions (resolution, contrast, etc). Rather, appreciation for boke is inherently subjective. Yet the way a lens renders boke can be just as important as the way it handles pinto. Many people only worry about whether a lens is critically sharp. Differences in sharpness are generally apparent only in large prints. Poorly-drawn boke can ruin a 4x6" or web-sized photo!

Here are some links for further reading about boke:

PA van Walree on "Bokeh"

"Understanding Boke" by Harold M. Merklinger

Rick Denney's "Bokeh Test"

"Bokeh in Pictures" by Mike Johnston

More about boke from Mike Johnston

If you want to eek a little more knowledge about boke from some really long threads, here are three for your perusal:

DPR thread started by joe mama
POTN thread started by booggerg
DPR thread started by TheronFamily

Read More......

While companies like Panasonic, Ricoh, Fujifilm, and Sony lead the way with new technologies in the compact digital camera market, Canon is playing it safe.

Panasonic has multiple wide angle offerings, including innovative sensors with 16x9 or variable native aspect ratios. They also offer RAW capability in all their advanced compact digital cameras.

Ricoh has the innovative GRD and GX100, which I covered in my last post. The GX100 goes starts at 24mm (35mm equivalent) and has RAW capability.

Fuji has been a pioneer in advancing sensor technologies, avoiding the megapixel race in compact cameras and focusing on dynamic range and color in their DSLR sensors. In the compact camera realm, Fuji has accomplished remarkable low light high ISO ability with their F-series cameras and others which share the same sensor.

Like these others, Sony continues to take risks. The camera that comes to mind first is the DSC-R1, the only camera to date which marries a sensor size usually associated with DSLRs to a non-SLR digital camera. It has a terrific Zeiss lens that starts at 24mm (35mm equivalent) and has a mechanically-linked zoom. It also has RAW capability. While the R1 is by no means compact, I admire Sony for doing *something* innovative for camera lovers who want an all-in-one, silent solution that DSLRs don't offer.

What is Canon doing? They have one wide angle current offering, the Powershot SD800 IS. The SD800 is a nice little camera but lacks good manual controls and RAW capability. It's not meant to be a manual tool for serious photographers. What is Canon offering such photographers? The S series is inactive and hasn't had RAW in recent models. The Pro1 has no sign of a successor as of yet. The G7 lacks the fast zoom, RAW mode, and flip LCD of its predecessors.

Why is Canon doing it? Many have speculated that Canon is dumbing down their compact cameras to force enthusiasts to buy DSLRs. This has the obvious benefit of bringing profits from expensive DSLR lenses, each of which cost more than a good compact camera. Canon representative Chuck Westfall recently gave an explanation for the absence of RAW in Canon's flagship G7. Basically he said that as a result of Canon stuffing so many pixels into a small sensor, the RAW material isn't good enough to yield any better results than DIGIC III is extracting in the in-camera processing. As any RAW shooter knows, he is full of it. Shooting RAW is not just about getting better results, it's about flexibility. When I shoot RAW, I can choose my white balance, sharpening settings, and noise reduction after the shot. I can also process using the enitre dynamic/tonal range that was captured. With the G7, every bit of this has been determined during the shot. If I look at the ISO 400 shot on my computer later and want a B&W conversion where I'd be willing to accept greater noise for greater detail, too bad, the choice has been made.

Why should I give a damn what Canon is doing? The sad fact is that I like Canon images. They know how to make good cameras. I don't want to say bad things about the enthusiast-level offerings from Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic (who also make the Leica compact cameras), but suffice it to say that none are just right for me.

I want to see Canon offer an updated model of the Pro1 with the following:
- Mechanically-coupled 24-70mm (35mm equivalent) f2-2.4 image stabilized zoom lens
- RAW capability
- DIGIC III or better processing
- A new, designed by Canon, 2/3 inch sensor with native 3:2 aspect ratio
- A good electronic viewfinder
- Overall size somewhere between the Pro1 and a Rebel XTi with kit lens attached
- Mechanical controls for aperture, shutter speed, and ISO.

I'd pay $1000 for that camera. Until something like that comes out, I'll probably be using the Leica Digilux 2 as my main camera. Why am I using a 2003 digital camera in 2007? I'll save that for another post, coming soon.

Read More......

I am intrigued by the Ricoh Caplio GX100, which is Ricoh's new compact camera with a 24-70mm (35mm equivalent) f2.5-4.4 lens, image stabilization (CCD shift), and RAW mode. The 10MP sensor is small compared to DSLR, but relatively large for a compact camera at 1/1.75". Image samples look good to me. The camera is selling for just under $600 at Adorama. Having recently bought a G7, I can't justify purchasing this one; but for anyone looking for a compact camera that can go wide, has good manual controls, and has RAW capability, this is one to watch. Notably missing: built-in viewfinder (clunky add-on EVF is available at extra cost and attaches to hot shoe as pictured above) and shutter speed priority mode (though there is a fully manual mode).

Read More......