With Photokina coming in September, there are many questions about what we might see from Leica this year. Will there be a Digital CL? D-LUX 4? R10? Autofocus R system? Leica version of the Olympus E-3? M9? More lenses?

A regular in the Leica Camera Forum has some of the answers, apparently straight from Stefan Daniel (product manager for the M System since 1998). Learn more here.

Read More......

I recently reported rumors that a full frame M9 is in the works. However, a Leica dealer in the UK appears to have broken the news that Leica has opted instead to continue to update the M8. Stephens Photo Center has posted the following:

LEICA ANNOUNCEMENT

NO NEW M9

LEICA M8 UPGRADE

Leica have just announced that there will not be an M9 as previously thought.

Instead they will offer an Upgrade on all existing M8 cameras with the following modifications.

1. New Saphire Viewing Screen (Virtually
unscratchable)
2. Shutter to 1/4000th
3. Quieter actuation of Shutter mechanism
4. New Firmware
5. 2 Year Warranty with Upgrade

This modification will be available from March 2008 and will be booked through Leica Germany's Website at a cost to the owner of 1200 Euros.

Leica see the M8 as being an ongoing camera that can be modified throughout its lifetime.

Further News will be posted as and when we receive it

Leica has not confirmed this on their official site. Furthermore, the M8 shutter speed already goes to 1/8000th of a second. This had all the makings of a bad joke. However, US Leica dealer Tony Rose seems to be taking it seriously in this thread at Rangefinder Forums, and CameraQuest owner Stephen Gandy had the following to say:

Not a Rumor
Folks,

I am not sure the guy in the UK got all the details right
-- but maybe he did.

But I do have it from a reliable source this info is substantially fact,
not rumor.

Hello M8 Upgrade Dept.

Stephen

While the reported specifics of the upgrade offer don't sound very appealing, the idea of offering M8 upgrades is interesting. The rest of the M series Leica cameras can be viewed as timeless. This type of upgrade process is the only way to assure that the digital M cameras will be seen in the same light.

Addendum: There is also a discussion of this issue here in the Leica User Forum.

Update: See this thread in the Leica User Forum. A registered M8 user posted the following:

Just received this email from Leica;




Dear LEICA M8 customers,
The desire to own a digital camera manufactured by Leica, possessing the identical lifelong value retention associated with every Leica product, was brought to us by many of our customers. Leica Camera AG has now configured the LEICA M8 to meet this demand. With today’s newsletter, we would like to inform you exclusively and in advance of an outstanding innovation regarding your cherished LEICA M8.

Subjects
LEICA M8: An investment in the future
What does the first upgrade kit include?
How do I get the upgrade for my M8?
Firmware update 1.201 available

LEICA M8: An investment in the future


With the introduction of a perpetual upgrade program, every LEICA M8 will forever be a state-of-the-art digital camera. Today’s and tomorrow’s users will always be able to incorporate the latest refinements and developments in handling ease and technology. It is our aim to secure your investment in the LEICA M8 for the future. “While other digital cameras quickly become outdated and are replaced by newer models, our new concept extends the value retention and resistance to obsolescence embodied in the Leica ethos. Over time, we will gradually offer new product features and developments as upgrade options,” declares Steven K. Lee, CEO of Leica Camera AG. “Our customers can therefore still invest in the photographic tools they need without worrying that they will miss out on improvements and technological developments alo ng the way.
This information will be presented during the PMA fair in Las Vegas, beginning January 31st.

What does the first upgrade kit include?


• Scratch-proof sapphire glass cover for the LCD monitor.
• Noise-optimized shutter with a fastest speed of 1/4000s.
• If so desired, the camera will be picked up at your home and sent directly back to you, without any intermediary stage in the process.
• Health-check and complete adjustment of the camera, testing all its functions.
• Installation of the newest relevant firmware.
• New factory warranty of two years covering the same conditions as for a new camera.

How do I get the upgrade for my M8?
• This offer applies exclusively to all registered M8 users.
• We will inform you shortly via e-mail when the website is updated with detailed information about the new M8 upgrade program, and will also inform you as soon as possible how to purchase the first upgrade certificates.
• The fact that you are registered as a M8 owner will give you guaranteed access to an exclusive online area where you will be able to purchase your upgrade certificate.
• Purchasing the upgrade certificates will be possible as of March 2008 - the actual upgrading will commence as of August 2008.
• The upgrades will be fullfiled in the same order as the upgrade certificates were purchased. It is therefore advisable to acquire the certificate as quickly as possible.

Firmware update 1.201 available
In keeping with the overall sustainability of the concept of the rangefinder camera system, Leica Camera AG is now offering all LEICA M8 users an updated version of the camera firmware, which can be downloaded free of charge from Friday, February 1st from our website. Among other things, the new firmware version contains new, substantially improved automatic white balance algorithms for natural color rendering in nearly all light conditions. We will send you special information via e-mail which contains a direct link as soon as we post the firmware update on our website.

We would feel very honored if you would be amongst the first to participate in our new program for the lifelong value retention of your M8.

Yours Sincerely,
The Leica internet team

This looks real to me!

Read More......

Leica is working hard to develop a full-frame digital M9, an autofocus R10 (SLR), and a compact digital M. So says Die Welt, a reputable German newspaper. Click here for the original article in German or here for an unusually good Google translation. Many, citing technical obstacles and lack of need, have expressed doubt that Leica would ever create a full-frame (35mm) digital M. Ever since the release of the 1.3x crop M8, I've considered the development of a full frame digital M to be inevitable, dependent only on two things - Leica's survival as a company and time.

I learned of the article via this thread at RangefinderForum.com.

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......

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......

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

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......

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

Thanks to quick shipping by PopFlash, I have the GX100 in my hands. This one seems to be a good copy, focusing properly in my initial tests. I am super busy these days and so rather than waiting to complete testing of this camera, I will be posting frequent, short updates.

I have chosen to compare these three cameras, Canon Powershot G7, Ricoh Caplio GX100, and Leica D-LUX 2, because I think they are all excellent choices for those seeking a compact camera with manual controls. In many cases, these are at the top of the list for DSLR users seeking a second, more compact camera. The D-LUX 2, which is essentially the same as the Panasonic DMC-LX1, has been replaced by the D-LUX 3 (LX2), but I will be using the earlier camera for comparison since it is the one I have available. In some ways, it may be the more appropriate model for my style since Panasonic has apparently applied considerable noise reduction to even the RAW files on the D-LUX 3/LX2. I discussed this issue here.

Here are some comparison photos of the three:











Here are a few resized photos taken from the same vantage point to show the effective zoom focal length range of these three cameras, which in my opinion is a key differentiating feature between them. These photos obviously should not be used to judge image quality, only zoom range.

First, the GX100 at the wide end, 24mm (35mm film equivalent):



Next, the D-LUX 2 at its widest setting, 28mm (available only in 16:9 aspect ratio):



Finally, the G7 at its widest, 35mm:



Now the telephoto comparison, starting with the GX100 at 72mm equivalent:



D-LUX 2 at full telephoto, 112mm equivalent:



G7 at full telephoto, 210mm equivalent:



Quite a difference. More to follow soon!

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......

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......