In Part 4 of the shootout, we'll look at the Canon G10 and Leica D-LUX 4 (Panasonic LX3) performance in low light at different ISO settings. Two things should be considered in this comparison:

1. The D-LUX lens is about 2/3 stop faster at any given angle of view, so comparing the two cameras at the same ISO may not reflect the real life situation, where one is likely to need a higher ISO with the G10 than with the D-LUX.
2. DxOmark found an approximate one stop disparity between the measured and reported (manufacturer) ISO at any given setting on the LX3, a disparity that they did not find with the G10. In other words, according to DxOmark, what the LX3 reports as ISO 400 is really ISO 200, 800 is really 400, etc. Click here to see their results. According to those data, we should really be comparing manufacturer ISO 400 LX3 files with manufacturer ISO 200 G10 files (statement edited after correction in comments), and so forth. However, shooting both cameras with manually matched exposure settings (f-number and shutter speed) and the same reported ISO resulted in the same resulting apparent exposure. Thus, assuming that 1) neither manufacturer is misrepresenting the shutter speed and/or aperture setting, and 2) that DxOmark is correct in their sensor analysis, it follows that somewhere in the processing pipeline, the LX3 data is getting pushed to the appropriate exposure index. Therefore, the assumption in the following comparisons is that, for practical purposes, the D-LUX 4 reported ISOs are accurate.

Methods:

• F-stop, shutter speed, and ISO were manually set identically for both cameras.
• The D-LUX 4 was used at approximately 35mm equivalent field of view (according to the in-camera JPEG, which means that the RAW data is slightly wider) and 4:3 aspect ratio to match the field of view of the G10.
• All files were processed in Raw Developer (Iridient Digital) with custom white balance, sharpening disabled, noise reduction disabled, and otherwise default settings.
• A single, sunlight balanced lamp was used to provide lighting.
• G10 files were downsized using Photoshop Bicubic to match the native size of the D-LUX 4 files.

100% crop comparisons are shown below. In each comparison, the G10 crop is on the left and the D-LUX 4 crop on the right.













I'd say the D-LUX 4 has a slightly better showing at high ISO in these comparisons, but there isn't much in it. However, taking into account both the faster lens and the slightly better sensor performance, the D-LUX 4/LX3 gives one about a one stop advantage over the G10 in low light. Bottom line: In typical use, I noticed a higher percentage of low light keepers with the D-LUX 4 than with the G10.

You can download all the RAW files below. There are five zip files:
Leica-1.zip contains ISO 80, 100, and 200 D-LUX 4 files.
Leica-2.zip has ISO 400, 800, and 1600 D-LUX 4 files.
Canon-1.zip has ISO 80 and 100 G10 files.
Canon-2.zip has ISO 200 and 400 G10 files.
Canon-3.zip has ISO 800 and 1600 G10 files.

Read More......

In Part 4a of the shootout, I presented photos taken in low, incandescent lighting, a sort of "worst case" scenario for the DP1. In this next example, the samples were shot in a mixture of natural and incandescent light. The technical details for this set are otherwise the same as those in Part 4a with one exception. I forgot to move the tripod for the F31 shots, so the F31 crops in this comparison represent a different field of view corresponding to the difference in angle of view (35mm equivalent vs 28mm equivalent) at a given perspective.

Here is the overall test scene with the specific regions examined identified in the yellow boxes:



ISO 400 Crop 1:



ISO 400 Crop 2:



ISO 400 Crop 3:



ISO 400 Crop 4:



ISO 800 Crop 1:



ISO 800 Crop 2:



ISO 800 Crop 3:



ISO 800 Crop 4:



ISO 1600 Crop 1:



ISO 1600 Crop 2:



ISO 1600 Crop 3:



ISO 1600 Crop 4:



As was the case in Part 4a, color fidelity is a problem for the DP1 in this low light comparison, and the problem grows worse with each increase in ISO. However, looking at Part 4a, you can see that the problem was more severe when incandescent light was the sole source of illumination. For example, the shift and desaturation in the brick region shown in Part 4a was already severe in the DP1 ISO 400 image, whereas the similarly colored red curtain in this comparison is better preserved. With a good source of natural light and willingness to postprocess, better results than those shown here are possible. However, a simple boost in saturation will not solve the color problems that affect high ISO, low light DP1 images.

Addendum: After reviewing the RAW images a few more times, I decided on a different custom white balance for the DP1 images to best match the colors of the other cameras. It's a tricky call because matching colors from some regions of the image will throw off the match in others. Having arrived at a better overall white balance choice, I have now replaced the DP1 crops in the comparisons above. As always, feel free to play with the RAW files.



Thanks again to Serhan for lending me the Fuji F31 used in this test. Part 5 of the shootout will be coming soon.

Read More......

The technology behind the Foveon sensor at the heart of the DP1 has been well covered elsewhere. One interesting aspect of the three-layered Foveon design is that the quality of color representation in low light is partially dependent on the spectrum of light available. For example, low light provided by natural light (i.e., sunlight through a window) will typically produce better colors than will a similar level of light coming from an incandescent source. I decided to do this first high ISO comparison as a sort of "worst case" demonstration. Here I will show crops from the Sigma DP1, Fujifilm F31, Canon 5D with 28mm f/2.8, and Olympus E-420 with 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. The photo compared was taken in low light, indoors, with an incandescent light source.

The competitors:



The Sigma was shot at f/5.6, Fuji at f/4, Canon at f/11, and Olympus at f/5.6. Shutter speeds were manually determined to match exposures. For detailed EXIF information, please consult the files available for download at the end of this post. A sturdy tripod was used in all cases. The subject distance was altered for the F31 shot in order to keep the field of view consistent.

An important thing to note is that the crops are grouped by ISO, which may not be relevant to actual practice. For example, the Fuji F31 has a one stop advantage in maximal lens speed compared with the DP1 (f/2.8 vs f/4). Therefore, one might compare the ISO 800 F31 crops with the ISO 1600 equivalent (ISO 800 pushed one stop) DP1 crops. Likewise, the Canon lens has a one stop advantage over the DP1; thus one might want to compared the ISO 400 DP1 crop to an ISO 200 5D crop. However, using the Canon lens at f/2.8 will result in a more shallow DOF than will using the DP1 at f/4. Therefore one might choose to shoot the Canon at f/6.3-7.1 for acceptable DOF in a situation where f/4 would do with the DP1. In such a case, the more relevant comparison would be DP1 ISO 400 to Canon ISO 1000 or 1250. I will simply present the crops according to ISO and leave it to you to decide which ones should be compared.

All images were resized using Photoshop Bicubic Sharper to match the diagonal pixel dimension of the native DP1 files. Therefore, the DP1 crops are at 100% of the original, and the 5D/E-420/F31 crops have been downsized as needed. All were shot RAW and processed using the settings specified in the introduction. The exception was the Fuji, which does not offer RAW. Although I custom white balanced all cameras at the time of use, all required further adjustment during RAW conversion to get a closer white balance match. I also applied a 25% cooling filter in Photoshop.

Here is the overall test scene with the specific regions examined identified in the yellow boxes:



ISO 400 Crop 1:



ISO 400 Crop 2:



ISO 400 Crop 3:



ISO 400 Crop 4:



ISO 800 Crop 1:



ISO 800 Crop 2:



ISO 800 Crop 3:



ISO 800 Crop 4:



ISO 1600 Crop 1:



ISO 1600 Crop 2:



ISO 1600 Crop 3:



ISO 1600 Crop 4:



I think these crops speak for themselves. With this quantity and spectrum of lighting, the DP1 high ISO color fidelity is poor. Boosting saturation in SPP (not shown) can help restore some punch, but it does not restore color accuracy. Nor does the use of custom WB use at the time of the shot help in any way that I could discern. On the positive side, high ISO DP1 files are clean, so black and white conversions can produce high quality results. The degree to which they are noise free raises the question as to whether SPP is applying some mandatory noise reduction. I look forward to trying 3rd party RAW processing applications as they become available and hope to read some analysis of the RAW files by those with expertise in that area.

What about the little Fuji? I think it can stand proud after this comparison. Sure there's some mandatory noise reduction going on with the F31, and yes it shows the least usable detail in this group. In my opinion, the good color fidelity of the F31 translates to better overall image quality than the Sigma DP1 for color, high ISO, small prints in this type of lighting. Especially so considering the one stop advantage of the Fuji lens (f/2.8 vs f/4), i.e. comparing F31 ISO 400 vs DP1 ISO 800 or F31 ISO 800 vs DP1 ISO 1600 (equivalent).

I realize that this comparison gives a somewhat different impression than the preliminary one I shared in the discussion area. Comments and suggestions are, as always, appreciated.



Special thanks to Serhan for lending me the Fuji F31 used in this test. In Part 4b of the shootout, I'll show the results from a similar comparison conducted in mixed low light.

Read More......

Part 1 - Introduction
Part 2 - High ISO Noise
Part 3 - Dynamic Range

Many readers of this site are aware that, beginning with the F10 and culminating with the F30, Fuji has offered arguably the best high ISO performance yet seen in a compact camera. Professional reviewers and photographers alike attributed this ability to a combination of Fuji's proprietary sensor technology, the decision to stick with only 6MP, and expert application of relatively heavy noise reduction. Whatever the contributing reasons, the results were compelling. Here is an example of a resized ISO 1600 shot I took of my son in relatively low light (f/5, 1/38s):



With the F50fd and now the F100fd, a number of reviewers, photography blogs, and Fuji fans have complained about Fuji's decision to follow suit in the megapixel hike. Surely they cannot deliver F30-class high ISO performance with the F100fd, which crams 12 million sensels into a small (1/1.6") sensor, right? Yet Fuji claims that with the F100fd, "ultrahigh sensitivity combined with the next-generation of noise reduction captures the moment in beautiful photos like no other compact digital camera." The truth, known to many readers of this site (though not all or I wouldn't be writing this), is that high megapixel counts don't really impact noise performance the way they are commonly believed to do so.

Everyone knows that noise which is apparent when an image is viewed at high magnification is far less apparent when the image is viewed small. Put another way, downsampling an image improves the apparent level of detail relative to noise. Judicious and skilled application of software noise reduction and sharpening during the downsampling process can further enhance this perception of detail/noise. The opposite is also true. When we upsize images, the apparent detail relative to noise decreases. Comparing a 12MP ISO 1600 image from the F100fd to a 6MP ISO 1600 image from the F30, there is no doubt that the one with smaller pixels (F100fd) will have far more noise when both images are viewed at 100% (pixel level); however, the 100% view is misleading. One should take into account that in producing output of equal size whether onscreen or in print, the high MP image will require more downsampling or less upscaling, either of which will improve the apparent detail/noise in the F100fd image relative to the F30 image. A number of individuals, clued in to this concept, have demonstrated similar high ISO results with high MP compacts relative to the "F30/F31 standard." For example, look here for Prognathous' demonstration of a resized, noise-reduced crop from the 10MP Ricoh GX100 compared to the in-camera JPEG output of the F31.

In theory, for two sensors of equal size and technology (same high ISO read noise and light capturing ability), the pixel (more accurately sensel) pitch should not impact high ISO detail relative to noise performance whatsoever at a given output size. For technical discussion, refer to the many posts by John Sheehy as well as those of Emil Martinec on these matters. While the theory makes intuitive sense to me, I have to admit that in practice it doesn't quite work out. Consider the following small pixel pitch vs large pixel pitch comparisons: 1Ds Mk II vs 5D, G7 vs F30, 1Ds Mk III vs D3. In each case the generation of sensor technology is assumed to be reasonably close, and the sensors are of similar size; hence light gathering ability should be nearly matched. As expected, the small-pixelled cameras show far more "per pixel" noise at high ISOs than do the large-pixelled cameras. Resizing both images to the same size output, these differences are greatly mitigated. Yet from the examples I have seen, the large-pixelled cameras continue to hold a slight high ISO edge even after resizing. Some maintain that such differences come down to software processing (NR, sharpening, etc). I'll leave it to folks like John and Emil to clarify those particulars. The main point here is that the pixel-level view is highly misleading and that the commonly held belief that more megapixels means poor high ISO performance is, at least for the most part, unfounded.

Fuji has undoubtedly been working to improve their sensor technology, but even so it is highly unlikely that the 12MP files from the F100fd will be able to match the 6MP images from the old F30 when compared at 100%. Knowing well that the pixel-level view makes quite an impression and that most people want to have their downsampling and noise reduction done for them, they have enabled the F100fd to offer the ability to process in-camera JPEGs as 6MP files (similar to the F30). Unfortunately I do not have the F100fd in hand for testing. However, a Chinese blog at http://f100fd.seesaa.net/ (English translation by Google here) has quite a few 6MP high ISO F100fd images. Click here to see some of their high ISO F100fd samples. To my eye, they look similar to the output of my old F30 and a bit better than I can get from downsampling high ISO images from other high MP compacts. I don't know if the Fuji advantage comes from better sensor technology or more sophisticated on-board noise reduction software, but the results are impressive. Then again, if you're the type who likes to selectively and sparingly use NR, no luck. The F100fd does not offer RAW and won't let you disable NR on in-camera JPEGs.

Addendum: Prognathous has done some excellent side-by-side testing of the high ISO performance of the Fuji F31 and F100fd. You can find his comparison here. It seems that the F31 is still class leading in this area, though the F100fd has a respectable result.

In the final bit of this three-part look ahead at the F100fd, I'll discuss Fuji's claims for wide dynamic range. That disclaimer once again: I have no inside information from Fuji, nor have I had the priviledge to yet test the F100fd. What follows is simply a discussion of the known technology with a measured dose of good-natured speculation.

Read More......

Part 1 - Introduction
Part 2 - High ISO Noise
Part 3 - Dynamic Range

When I shop for a pocket camera, there are three questions I ask.

1) How well does the camera allow me to do my part? This is largely dependent on features such as those that follow:
- Aperture-priority, shutter speed priority, and true manual mode (independent aperture and shutter speed control)
- Focal length range
- Maximum lens aperture
- RAW capability
- Manual focus capability
- Quality of LCD and/or viewfinder
- Ergonomics
- Physical controls
- Operational speed (including autofocus speed, shutter lag, RAW buffer, etc)
- Camera size

2) How well does the camera do its part when I do mine? This consists of the following:
- Lens sharpness, distortion, contrast, bokeh, color
- Sensor ability to capture detail in optimal light
- Sensor detail relative to noise in suboptimal light
- Sensor dynamic range (effect of lens omitted here for discussion)
- Sensor effects on color
- Presence and effectiveness of image stabilization
- Battery life
- Weather resistance

The two categories above are largely what define the "seriousness" of a compact to me. Yet there is another category.

3) How well does the camera do its part if I don't want to do my part? Here we consider such features as face detection, which are of greatest importance to the person who doesn't want complete control over the picture-taking process.

One area which broadly falls under categories 2 & 3 is that of in-camera JPEG handling. There is no doubt that some compact camera photographers prefer to do "serious" work while shooting in JPEG mode, whereas others prefer RAW. For the former group, the in-camera handling of JPEGs is critical and raises the following questions:
- How flexible are in-camera settings for sharpness and noise reduction?
- How flexible are in-camera settings for color and contrast?
- What other operations is the camera performing with regards to tone mapping, and how much control can I exert over these?

What does all this have to do with the Fuji F100fd, and does the F100fd deserve to be called a "serious compact"? The second question is worth asking because the F100fd lacks important features from category 1, namely control of aperture/shutter speed and RAW capability. In this sense, it isn't a very serious compact at all. It is the heir of the F20/F40 more so than that of the more capable F30. Yet, having viewed a number of image samples from the F100fd, it is clear to me that this camera has the potential to produce "serious" results. In fact, despite having left out aperture and shutter speed controls, Fuji is referring to the F100fd as "the ultimate ‘F Series’ digital camera."

Boiled down to it's essence, the F100fd offers the promise of two potentially exciting capabilities. First, it is said to have a 1/1.6" 8th Generation Super CCD sensor capable of both recording 12MP of detail as well as maintaining high detail relative to noise at high ISO values in low light. Second, Fuji claims that "[the wide dynamic range] technology, now perfected in the EISA Award-winning FinePix S5 Pro, has been brought to the consumer in the FinePix F100fd." Before dismissing these claims out of hand, one ought to give Fuji the respect they are due. In terms of detail/noise, Fuji truly brought high ISO performance to compact cameras with the F10/11 and refined this capability with the F30. With regards to high dynamic range imaging, Fuji again successfully pushed the field with their S3 and S5 DSLRs. However, with today's technology, the F100fd's 5x zoom and shirt pocket size means a small sensor size; and while 1/1.6" is larger than most other small sensors, it isn't that much larger. Putting 12MP in a small sensor means a tiny sensel size. Part 2 of this series will address the question, "Can the tiny-senselled F100fd have a detail/noise performance similar to that of the 6MP Fuji F30?" Part 3 will address the F100fd dynamic range claims. Disclaimer: I have no inside information from Fuji, nor have I had the priviledge to yet test the F100fd. What follows is simply a discussion of the known technology with a measured dose of good-natured speculation.

Read More......

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


Click here to go to the new location

Read More......

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

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

Read More......

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......