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

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

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

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

Read More......

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

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

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

Read More......

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

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

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

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



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

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

Read More......

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More......