Lots of folks realized that the Canon A650 featured the same sensor as the Powershot G9, but how many realized that the diminuitive Powershot SD950IS packed the very same 12MP 1/1.7" sensor? What would you say if Canon were to release a 160 gram ELPH with a sharp 35mm (equivalent) f/2.8 lens and the sensor from the G10?   In fact, Canon has done that and more with the recently announced Powershot SD990 (IXUS 980) IS.

Take a moment to consider what the SD990 IS offers:

• First SD (IXUS)/ELPH series Canon with Program/Aperture priority/Shutter priority/Manual modes
• Same 14.7MP 1/1.7" sensor (presumably) as the G10
• 7.7-28.5mm f/2.8-5.8 (35mm film equivalent: 36-133mm) zoom lens as the SD950 IS
• First SD series Canon offered in black (also red)
• New rotating dial surrounding four-way controller on back
• Manual focus option
  
• Optical viewfinder, increasingly a rarity
• DIGIC IV with more sophisticated noise reduction
• Image stabilization
  
• New "Quick Mode" uses the viewfinder for display, disables the LCD, and offers a reduced shutter lag
• Weight: 160g without battery
• First SD series camera with H.264 video (640x480, 30fps)
  

Some of the things missing (versus the G10):

• RAW mode
• Hot shoe
• Wide angle
• Speed at the telephoto end
• More than half of the weight
  

It's great to see Canon getting more serious with the SD series, offering full manual exposure controls for the first time.   Panasonic made a similar move with the even more compact FX500 some time ago.  The fact that the SD990 IS couples the flagship (G10) sensor with the highly regarded lens from the SD950 makes for high image quality expectations.  I wish they could have taken the extra step and offered RAW, though in general I find that Canon is amongst the best at finding a balance between detail and noise with in-camera JPEG processing.

The SD990 IS was announced two weeks ago and is currently in stock for $387 shipped at Amazon via the link below.

Read More......

Corporations have to protect their trademarks or they can lose them. That's why Apple starting going after everything with "pod" in the name. Yet even Apple has a little bit of restraint in setting the legal dogs on fan sites. Sure they sued Think Secret, but at least they eventually did the right thing (They paid the kids off to shut down if I recall correctly). Hopefully they recognize that sites like MacRumors and Apple Insider are good for them in the long run. After all, the people who come to those sites are their biggest fans

Today, Canon USA sent a cease and desist letter to their excellent fan site, Canon Rumors. They are insisting that the site's domain name violates their trademark. Clearly Canon Rumors is no different than Nikon Cafe, Nikonians, or the Apple site examples I gave above. This is no way to treat the people who come to a site day after day hoping to find out when they can give you some more hard earned money, Canon! It's amazing that companies with that kind of intellectual capital make such dumb mistakes.

The more blogs calling Canon out on this one, the better. I see that our friends at 1001 Noisy Cameras are on the case.

On a separate note, I'll point out that Canon sent the C&D order shortly after Canon Rumors reported on the highly plausible Powershot G10 and 21MP 5D II with HD video rumors. Coincidence??

Update: Canon Rumors heard back from Canon USA legal and posted an update today. Canon USA is insisting that Canon Rumors stop using the domain www.canonrumors.com. I am no lawyer, but I hope they don't give up the domain without first researching their rights. Perhaps the EFF would be of some help?

Read More......

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

Click here to go to the new location

Read More......

Ken Ko was kind enough to share this photo of a classy black duo of Canon compacts.



Pictured on the left, a Canonet GIII QL17 in the highly sought after black finish. On the right, the Canon Powershot G7 with Canon conversion lens adapter and filter.

The QL17 GIII, introduced in 1972, is a compact 35mm film rangefinder camera with a fixed 40mm f/1.7 lens. According to Steven Gandy of CameraQuest, over 1.2 million of these were sold between 1972 and 1982. The CameraQuest article has excellent information about the Canonet GIII QL17. A number of other excellent references can be found in the Camerapedia wiki. I have owned two of these in the more common chrome finish and found them to be excellent little (though heavy!) cameras. The specific strengths and weaknesses are covered nicely in the above references. The Canonet GIII QL17 is built to last, often requiring only new batteries and fresh light seals to work well after decades of non use. I recommend hink2u on Ebay as a reseller of restored Canonets for a reasonable price.

Looking at the photo, there can be no doubting the lineage. Unfortunately, Ken's beloved G7 has died after 14 months of gentle use without drops or other abuse. Meanwhile his friend's Canonet, after greater than 25 years, is probably working as well as ever. I doubt that any of today's digital serious compacts will endure like the classics of the past.

For more of Ken's photos of this pair, check out the full set on Flickr.

Read More......

Via the tireless 1001 Noisy Cameras comes news of Lets Go Digital's excellent interview with Panasonic. My read of the statements made by the Panasonic representative is that Panasonic has an LX2 placement in the works for Photokina and acknowledges the role of large sensors in the future of compact digital photography. I could have guessed both of these, but it is encouraging to hear them confirmed, even if only indirectly so.

Though most people seem to think of the Powershot G9 when they hear the term "advanced compact," I believe that companies like Panasonic, Ricoh, and now Sigma, are leading the way. The G9 is an outstanding execution of an evolving series, but Canon aren't innovating the way that these other companies are. As the market leader, I suppose there isn't much incentive for them to do so; but I can't help wondering what Canon could accomplish if they too were pushing the envelope. Meanwhile, of all the small sensor advanced compacts we are likely to see at Photokina, the Panasonic LX2 replacement has my greatest interest.

Read More......

When the Rebel XT was released with 10MP, there was an immediate reaction in the DPReview 10D/20D/30D forum. How could Canon put a 10MP in the entry level body and leave the 30D stranded with just 8MP? In time, it became clear that the extra 2MP adds very little to resolution while the decreased pixel size, or rather sensel size, adds a touch more noise at high ISOs. Needless to say Canon puts a number of capabilities in the X0D series that don't make it into the Rebel series. Higher frames per second in burst, better autofocus, more metering modes, larger, brighter viewfinders, and more robust shutter mechnisms to name just a few. Yet with each generation, the feature gap between these classes shrinks. With the original Digital Rebel, Canon literally handcapped the camera in software in order to preserve 10D sales. The latest Rebel gets spot metering, a sophisticated AF system, larger OVF than before (though still mirror rather than prism), and even highlight tone priority! All this plus 12MP (the 40D has 10MP) and contrast detection AF in live view! Thus the 40D user outcry at having been jipped in the megapixel race was expected and even somewhat understandable. What's interesting is that just as multiple threads are popping up in the 40D forum, with one new 40D user actually crying about it, prospective Rebel XSi buyers are complaining about the pixel packing in the Rebel forums. If we assume that the Rebel Xsi and 40D have similar sensor technologies and equal quality low pass (AA) filters - and neither of those is truly a safe bet at this point - then a couple conclusions follow. In good light, with a good lens, the Xsi should be capable of capturing a touch more detail than the 40D. In low light at high ISO, the 40D ought to fare a bit better. Neither of those advantages will be very significant, and the difference in dynamic range corresponding to such a small change in sensel size is negligible.

Assuming Canon hasn't put a crappy AA filter in the Rebel XSi, it should be pretty sweet for focal length-limited shots of distant birds in flight. If light is good, an XSi user should be able to get significantly more pixels on a distant bird than a 1D III user with the same lens. The particular lens that springs to mind for this application is the 400mm f/5.6L, which should pack enough resolution to take advantage of each one of those little pixels. Click here for a great illustration of the "crop factor" at work, and keep in mind that the advantage shown for the 20D compared with the 1D II on that site should be even greater with the XSi compared with the 1D III. Highlight tone priority is another welcome addition that should come in handy with bird photography, where white feathers often present an exposure challenge. I think the XSi is exactly what I've been waiting for in a wildlife camera.

Read More......

The Canon 50mm f/1.2L is a remarkable lens. I won't go on and on about it since I'm not a lens expert. However, in my unqualified opinion, the 50/1.2L has to be one of the all-time great 50mm lenses in 35mm photography. The knock on the Canon 50L (besides it being somewhat "uncool" to be a Canon in a Canon-dominated world) is that it suffers a noticeable degree of focus shift. That is to say that at close focus distances, the focal plane at higher f-numbers (smaller apertures) is closer than the focal plane at f/1.2. Since the camera focuses each lens at full aperture, the result is that close range images at higher f-numbers end up out of focus (back focused). Apparently this degree of focus shift is the result of uncorrected spherical aberration. I assume the same uncorrected spherical aberration helps explain the excellent job this lens does with rendering out-of-focus background elements. With its modern C-Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM (the early version of which HCB used on his Leica M bodies), Zeiss describes focus shift more as a feature than a shortcoming. Click here to see a good demonstration of focus shift from the Sonnar. However, those who complain about the Canon 50mm f/1.2L suggest that Canon ought to have used a floating lens element to correct for near focus performance, just as they did with the 35mm f/1.4L and 85mm f/1.2L.

An alternate solution for the 50L focus shift - that Canon address it with a firmware update - was proposed some time ago by Joe Mama in the DPReview forums. At the time, I thought it was an excellent idea; but I wasn't convinced that it could be done. Lately I've been reading more about older film cameras and came across some interesting information about a relatively inexpensive autofocus film camera, the Konica Hexar AF (http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Konica_Hexar). The Hexar had a built-in 35mm f/2 lens that is said by some to have equalled or surpassed the best Leica had to offer at this focal length. Konica decided to leave a fair amount of uncorrected spherical aberration in this lens, which apparently contributed both to sharpness wide open and extremely good handling of bokeh at the expense of significant focus shift (http://wiki.silvergrain.org/wiki/index.php/Konica_Hexar). Their solution for the focus shift was to simply have the on-board computer adjust the AF in an aperture-specific manner.

Adding a floating lens element to correct for near focus would likely add to the cost, and potentially also the size, of the 50L. Seems to me that in this era of autofocus, the software route is even more elegant than the optical fix. Konica did this in 1993. Fifteen years later, I think Joe had it right. Canon should be able to manage this with a firmware update.

Read More......

2008 may prove to be a real breakthrough year for digital photography. DSLRs are now affordable for just about everyone, and quality compact digital cameras are getting downright cheap.

- It;s hard for me to believe that one can buy a good Olympus DSLR (E-330, body only) new for $330.
- The full-frame (35mm sensor) Canon 5D is selling close to $2000 new and $1500 used in excellent condition.
- There is good reason to believe one or more 5D replacements will be announced on January 24, 2008. If Canon brings in a new full frame camera at a $2K street price, the 5D will likely approach $1k in the used market by the end of 2008. That would be a huge development for full frame fans.
- Quality, image-stabilized body+2-lens DSLR kits such as the Olympus E-510/14-42/40-150 kit are selling for $650!
- Advanced, high end compacts like the Powershot G9 have been driven way down in price by the increasing affordability of DSLRs.
- The Panasonic DMC-FZ18, a high-quality "bridge camera" with an excellent 18x stabilized zoom covering wide to supertelephoto, is selling for under $350.
- There are too many to name high quality compact cameras coming in near or below the $200 mark.

2008 is bound to be a year in which many of those holding out on their digital camera purchase will wait no longer. As for me, I just want an affordable digital rangefinder. Is that too much to ask?

Read More......

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......

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......

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......

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


Click here to go to the new location

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......

Pt. 1 - Appearance and Zoom Range
Pt. 2 - JPEG Noise
Pt. 3 - ISO 80 JPEG Crops at 35mm & Full Aperture
Pt. 4 - Flare Performance
Pt. 5 - Noise Performance Revisited
Pt. 6 - G7 Default JPEG vs GX100 Silkypix Conversions
Pt. 7 - Key Timings
Pt. 8 - Build Quality, Quality Control, and Battery Life
Pt. 9 - Conclusion

The question I get most often is "Which one do you recommend most?" None of these cameras are right for everyone, but I will try to provide a summary analysis here along with my personal decisions and their basis.

Form factor: Each camera has its merits here. The D-LUX is the most portable, followed closely by the Ricoh. I appreciate the fact that the G7 lens retracts, making a clunky separate lens cover unnecessary. The Ricoh is the only one to provide a decent grip, though in truth I find all quite comfortable to control. The G7 feels the most solid, but it's also the heaviest by far.

Controls: I prefer the manual dials of the G7 and GX100 to the joystick approach of the D-LUX. The G7 controls and menus have a nice familiarity since I have owned a number of Canon DSLRs and compact digital cameras which share control elements. The ISO dial on the G7 is a real blessing, something all my cameras should have but none beside the G7 do. All three cameras position controls well from a usability standpoint. However, I have come to love the controls and customization of the GX100 most of all. I love being able to register my most commonly used indoor and outdoor settings to the two "My Setting" locations main dial. The dual dials are simple and effective, and the menu can also be simply customized for easier access to important settings.

Zoom range: No brainer here. As described here, the focal length ranges are dramatically different and in my opinion this should serve as the main differntiating factor in choosing amongst these cameras.

Image quality:

The G7 and GX100 seem to resolve a comparable amount of detail when "pixel peeping." The D-LUX too rises to the occasion, particularly when shooting RAW. The GX100 marginally outresolves the G7 when the former is shot in RAW mode and care take in postprocessing. That said, the G7 does an admirable job in removing noise without destroying image detail. However, for those of us who really understand and enjoy postprocessing, RAW provides another level of flexibility. We get to choose our own detail versus noise removal trade-offs throughout each region of each image.

The noise quality and image detail of the GX100 is subjectively the most appealing of the three cameras to me when using the default in-camera black and white JPEG mode. This is true at all ISOs, but particularly at ISO 200 and above. I won't go so far as to call the Ricoh noise "grain" as some have done. It still looks digital to me at the pixel level. However, both on the LCD and in print, the GX100 B&W noise appeals to me more than the G7 noise does. The D-LUX noise, in RAW conversions to B&W, also has a pleasing quality to my eye.

The G7 lens shows great resistance to veiling flare compared with the others. It is difficult to emphasize just how important this quality is - a major plus for the Canon.

The GX100 lens shows very little purple fringing, even wide open at the shortest focal lengths. What little purple fringing exists is effectively treated by the in-camera JPEG processing. Purple fringing is not a major problem for any of the three, but the GX100 is the best of the lot.

Automatic white balance was acceptable on all three. The G7 and D-LUX seemed a bit more consistent outdoors with the GX100 perhaps more consistent indoors.

Color accuracy was not specifically tested, but my impression was that all are quite good in this respect.

Dynamic range, as expected, is not very good with any of these small-pixelled cameras. I'd say, without rigorous testing, that they are all similarly weak in this aspect. The D-LUX and GX100 RAW files can afford a bit of leeway in salvaging lost shadow detail and clipped highlights. G7 users lack this flexibility.

Shot to shot time in RAW mode was slightly longer with the GX100 than with the D-LUX 2.

Movie mode: In my tests, the G7 produces the highest quality movies of the three.

Metering is comparably effective with all three cameras. I am the weakest link in each case when it comes to metering.

Subjective Assessments:

LCD: The G7 LCD is the most legible of the three, particularly in bright light. All three have bright LCDs that are "good enough" for a variety of lighting situations.

Viewfinder: The G7 is the only one with a built-in viewfinder. However, there is considerable framing inaccuracy with this viewfinder. The Ricoh EVF is a clumsy attachment to carry, and doesn't give the best image in the world, but at least it frames accurately; it is therefore much more useful to me than is the G7 optical viewfinder. The D-LUX lacks an optical viewfinder.

Battery: My subjective impression is that the G7 has a better battery life than the other two cameras, though none of the three have very good battery life.

Focusing accuracy and speed were not objectively measured. In use, they seem very good with all three, and I am unable to say that one is better than another.

Image stabilization: Image stabilization was effective on all three cameras. I have insufficient data to judge between them in this category.

The menu system and operation speeds are excellent on all.

Not tested:

The flash on each has been insufficiently tested for me to make a judgment.

I have not used any of the bundled software. RAW users should check the compatibility of their RAW processing software of choice prior to assuming a given camera will be supported.

Macro modes have not yet been tested.

Continuous shooting modes were not tested.

Other Special Features

- The G7 and GX100 have a hot shoe.

- G7 has face detection.

- Native 16:9 aspect ratio of the D-LUX 2.

- Step zoom of the GX100 is a great feature for prime lovers.

- Snap zoom of the GX100 is a bit of a gimmmick, not different than setting manual focus to 2.5m on the other two cameras. However, having this "feature" as a distinct setting allows one to quicly select it, which is quite useful.

- The GX100 allows one to shoot in 1:1 format.

- The D-LUX 2 has a TIFF mode in addition to RAW and JPEG.

- The G7 seems to work with regular 4GB SD cards (I tested it with the Transcend 150x 4GB SD card) whereas the GX100 requires SDHC cards when going higher than 2GB. I'm not sure about the Leica.

- The GX100 will take AAA batteries in a pinch.

- Various conversion lenses and accessories are beyond the scope of my comparison.

So which one should you buy?

All three cameras are excellent choices if you want a compact camera with full photographic control.

Here are a few tips:
- If you eschew RAW, like to shoot JPEGs only, and enjoy shooting at high ISO and making large prints, avoid the D-LUX cameras.
- If you mainly shoot B&W, I think the GX100 is the most rewarding of the three. It has a great in-camera B&W mode, and RAW files are ultimately the best source for high quality B&W conversions from color.
- If you want a camera that will impress the general public, the G7 and D-LUX get the most comments. On the other hand, if you want not to be noticed, a black LX2/3 or GX100 are probably the best fit.
- If you want a camera that will impress other photographers, the GX100 gets the most questions =).

In the end, the most important question to answer before buying one of these cameras is what focal length range suits your style of photography. If you like to shoot telephoto, the G7 is the clear answer. On the other end of the spectrum, the GX100 is the only one of the three to extend to the ultra-wide focal length range. The D-LUX 2 has the most moderate range extending from wide to moderate telephoto.

The G7 is a fantastic photographic tool. I have used it to make large prints which are similar in quality, to my eye, to those taken with my 5D and L lenses. For the JPEG shooter who doesn't frequently go wide, I don't think there is a better compact camera available. It is a highly controversial camera, but the great majority of criticisms seem to come from those who haven't used one for any period of time. Professional reviews have all voiced similar complaints about the omission of RAW, slower lens than previous G-series cameras, and lack of a flip LCD, but their summary conclusions have been almost universally positive.

I was planning to keep all three cameras, but after carrying them all for the past couple of weeks, I have decided that that would be overkill. Since my style of photography is more and more tending towards wide angle and B&W, the GX100 suits me best. The D-LUX 2 makes a wonderful backup, and I really enjoy shooting in its native 16:9 aspect ratio as a change of pace. I will gift the G7 to my father, who recently gave me his D-LUX 2 and could use a compact camera to go with his Canon DSLR.

If this multipart comparison has helped you to decide to purchase one of these excellent cameras, you can help me by purchasing from Amazon after going there via the links below.



Visiting the Amazon page using these 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 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......

Pt. 1 - Appearance and Zoom Range
Pt. 2 - JPEG Noise
Pt. 3 - ISO 80 JPEG Crops at 35mm & Full Aperture
Pt. 4 - Flare Performance
Pt. 5 - Noise Performance Revisited
Pt. 6 - G7 Default JPEG vs GX100 Silkypix Conversions
Pt. 7 - Key Timings
Pt. 8 - Build Quality, Quality Control, and Battery Life
Pt. 9 - Conclusion

Disclaimer: This section, while important, is extremely subjective. All I can tell you is of my experience with a small number of samples of these cameras.

D-LUX 2
Build Quality - The D-LUX 2 build is very nice with a light but solid feel. It has a metal body with only limited use of plastic.

Quality Control - The one copy I have tried of the D-LUX 2 has been flawless.

GX100
Build Quality - The GX100 build quality is also very nice. It also has a great, solid feel. Both copies I have owned have had wobbly lens assemblies, which perceptibly shift even when the camera is inverted a certain way with the lens assembly retracted. The zoom control on my second copy also has a bit of an inconsistent click, which is a minor issue but worth mentioning.

Quality Control - The first unit I bought was purchased new but had signs of use. I cannot say for sure that it had been used and returned, but I suspect that it was. At any rate, that camera did not function properly. It may be that the original owner dropped it or damaged it in some way, so I want to be careful not to say much about Ricoh QC based on the one unit. The second unit, incidentally purchased from a different seller, has been perfect.

G7
Build Quality - The G7 build feels the most solid of the three. While the D-LUX 2 may look more luxurious (especially to "Red Dot" fans), and the GX100 may feel more luxurious, the G7 definitely feels the most substantial of the three. It is by far the heaviest. Even the battery and card door mechanisms feel durable, which I can't say for the other two cameras.

Quality Control - Unfortunately it took me three tries to get a good G7. The first one I bought new had multiple white hot pixels in the center of the sensor, apparent even on very short exposures. The second came with signs of use, large debris (not just dust) inside the front lens element, and at least 5-6 stuck or dead LCD pixels (I don't go looking for these and in general am not troubled by them). The third has a couple sensor pixels stuck on blue, but I am not troubled by them. Much better than white. The other thing I noticed is that the amount of viewfinder inaccuracy was not the same on the three G7 units. The third had less parallax error than the second. I should mention that the "good" G7 was purchased from a different store than the first two.

Since I don't feel that I can draw any solid conclusions based on these few experiences, I won't say here where I bought the units that had problems. I will say that the sellers involved were prompt and professional in issuing refunds or exhanges as requested.

Battery Life
I will report here my subjective findings since I don't plan to do any formal testing. Battery life is not a strong point for any of these three cameras. Compared to my previous compact camera, a Fujifilm Finepix F30, all three of the currently compared cameras have poor battery life. Compared to one another, the G7 seems a bit better than the other two. Subjectively, I get a full day of intermittent shooting with one G7 charge, whereas the GX100 and D-LUX 2 have me turning to spare batteries part of the way through the day. With any of these cameras, an extra battery or two will be needed if you plan to do a lot of shooting.

Read More......

Pt. 1 - Appearance and Zoom Range
Pt. 2 - JPEG Noise
Pt. 3 - ISO 80 JPEG Crops at 35mm & Full Aperture
Pt. 4 - Flare Performance
Pt. 5 - Noise Performance Revisited
Pt. 6 - G7 Default JPEG vs GX100 Silkypix Conversions
Pt. 7 - Key Timings
Pt. 8 - Build Quality, Quality Control, and Battery Life
Pt. 9 - Conclusion

I left the D-LUX 2 out of this comparison since my time was limited and the D-LUX is not specifically supported by the free Silkypix version I downloaded (so colors were off). In Part 5 of this shootout, I compared Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) conversions from the GX100 and D-LUX 2 to the G7 default JPEGs. In that comparison, my goal was really to see how much more detail the RAW files held than the JPEGs, and the noise levels of my resulting ACR conversions were higher than some people would tolerate in daily use.

By contrast, in present comparison I have attempted to use a combination of Silkypix and Noise Ninja settings to result in a comparable level of noise and sharpening to the corresponding G7 default JPEG. I used Silkypix here for RAW conversions by request of a reader and because there is a free version available for both Windows and Mac. This was my first time using Silkypix, so I do not doubt that someone else could do better with this program, espcially the pay version which has more options.

The camera settings and conditions were unchanged from those used in Part 5. Once again, here was the overall test scene:



As always, click on the photo for full size (In some browsers, a second click is necessary to get actual size). Please note that each full size image is between 1.5 - 2.5MB in size, so either a lot of patience or fast download speeds are necessary.

ISO 80 crops:



ISO 100 crops:



ISO 200 crops:



ISO 400 crops:



ISO 800 crops:



ISO 1600 crops:



That's it for now. Later today I will be posting reviews of three cases I've been using with the GX100.

Read More......

Pt. 1 - Appearance and Zoom Range
Pt. 2 - JPEG Noise
Pt. 3 - ISO 80 JPEG Crops at 35mm & Full Aperture
Pt. 4 - Flare Performance
Pt. 5 - Noise Performance Revisited
Pt. 6 - G7 Default JPEG vs GX100 Silkypix Conversions
Pt. 7 - Key Timings
Pt. 8 - Build Quality, Quality Control, and Battery Life
Pt. 9 - Conclusion

I received feedback from a number of individuals who wanted to see the prior high ISO noise testing repeated with some RAW conversions included. I am posting here some prelimanry results of such tests. Of course, RAW conversion is a highly personal process. I have used here Adobe Camera RAW with slight noise removal at ISO 400 and up only, since my main goal here is to show how much extra detail can be retained if one is willing to tolerate noise. Of course if one were to find the noise levels of my RAW conversions to be excessive, additional noise removal could be applied during or after RAW conversion.

As before, I used standard in-camera processing settings when possible. Cameras were set to 35mm equivalent focal length and tested on a tripod with self-timer. Aperture was fixed at f5.6 (f5.8 was the closest possible on the GX100).

Here was the overall test scene:



As always, click on the photo for full size (In some browsers, a second click is necessary to get actual size). Here are the right edge crops:

Edit/Correction - In my haste, I mislabelled the bottom GX100 crop in each set, which should instead be labelled as GX100 ACR conversion.

ISO 80:



ISO 100:


ISO 200:



ISO 400:



ISO 800:



ISO 1600:



I will add the results from the center, left edge, bottom left corner, and bottom right corner later today. I will also add results from Silkypix RAW conversions as soon as possible.

Read More......

Pt. 1 - Appearance and Zoom Range
Pt. 2 - JPEG Noise
Pt. 3 - ISO 80 JPEG Crops at 35mm & Full Aperture
Pt. 4 - Flare Performance
Pt. 5 - Noise Performance Revisited
Pt. 6 - G7 Default JPEG vs GX100 Silkypix Conversions
Pt. 7 - Key Timings
Pt. 8 - Build Quality, Quality Control, and Battery Life
Pt. 9 - Conclusion

In order to evaluate the flare performance of these three cameras, I took a series of photos with a strong indirect light source. In this case, I took a photograph of the shadowed side of a house where just above the frame there was strong light coming from a very bright, overcast sky.

Settings:
- JPEGs were compared. For the Leica and Ricoh cameras, I actually shot using the RAW+JPEG setting, but the crops you see are from the accompanying JPEG (highest quality chosen where applicable).*
- All settings (contrast, sharpness, noise reduction, etc) were at standards settings.
-Aperture priority mode was used to set the aperture at f5.6 (f5.8 on the Ricoh was the closest possible setting).
- Cameras were tripod mounted with self-timer used.
- All cameras were set to ISO 80.
- No optional accesories (hoods, filters, my hand, etc) which could affect flare were used.
- All cameras were set to 35mm equivalent focal length

Here are the images.

First the D-LUX2:



Next the GX100:



Finally the G7:



To me, it is clear that the G7 performance was the best of the bunch in this round of testing. It was the only lens to not greatly suffer from veiling flare and the substantial contrast penalty incurred thereby. The GX100, on the other hand, was the only one to be free of flare spots.

Read More......

Pt. 1 - Appearance and Zoom Range
Pt. 2 - JPEG Noise
Pt. 3 - ISO 80 JPEG Crops at 35mm & Full Aperture
Pt. 4 - Flare Performance
Pt. 5 - Noise Performance Revisited
Pt. 6 - G7 Default JPEG vs GX100 Silkypix Conversions
Pt. 7 - Key Timings
Pt. 8 - Build Quality, Quality Control, and Battery Life
Pt. 9 - Conclusion

The Ricoh GRD has a reputation for "grain-like" noise, particularly with black and white photographs. I was anxious to see whether the GX100 would offer a pleasing quality of noise since noise is such an important part of small sensor digital photography. To me, the effects of over-zealous noise reduction are much more offensive than those of noise itself, especially if the noise can be considered "grain-like." Unlike the G7, the GX100 and D-LUX 2 each offer the option to shoot RAW, with complete control over noise handling. However, before I dive into a comparison of processed RAW files from the GX100 and D-LUX2, I thought I'd compare the default B&W and color JPEGs from the three cameras from a noise standpoint.

Methods: The following are all 100% crops with the camera on a tripod, self-timer, image stabilization on, aperture priority mode at f4 (f4.1 on the GX100 since it won't do f4). All B&W images were taken using default in-camera B&W settings. All sharpening, color, white balance, exposure compensation, contrast, and noise reduction settings were at default.

I didn't get the framing exactly right, and the file sizes of the D-LUX 2 made for a very different field of view. Between that issue and the poor white balance, I think the Leica was made to look worse than it is. However, it's fair to say that the D-LUX 2 is not the best at handling noise when shooting JPEGs.

In the following crops, the D-LUX 2 is on the left, the GX100 is in the middle, and the G7 is on the right. In each case, click on the image to see at full size.

EDIT - Sorry for any inconvenience, the crops have been removed. If you are interested in reviewing the full-resolution files (large), they can be downloaded from this Flickr set.

Read More......