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?

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.

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


Click here to go to the new location

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.

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.

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).