Serious Compacts - Photography, News, Discussion, and Reviews of Advanced Compact Cameras

Ricoh GXR System

2009-11-09T20:09:00.004-05:00

There is certainly some promise in the ability to vary sensor size and specification according to the lens focal length range, but adding a sensor to each lens has got to significantly increase cost. I'm not sure what to make of this just yet!

Others seem similarly unsure how to react to the leak. Amongst my favorite responses to the Engadget post:

Barry @ Nov 9th 2009 4:55PM
"So Ricoh basically lost their frickin' minds. Interesting."

Macgic @ Nov 9th 2009 5:19PM
"Brilliant idea. You can have a small sensor for your zoom. And a larger sensor for your faster prime. This makes the gxr the smallest interchangable lens digital on the market!"

Bad Beaver @ Nov 9th 2009 5:22PM
"I'm looking forward to seeing reviews. Depending on what they actually put in there, it's either a stroke of genius or just batshit crazy."

lou @ Nov 9th 2009 5:42PM
"Not so suave, Ricoh"

Full coverage at 1001 Noisy Cameras.

Olympus E-P2 and Two New Lenses Announced

2009-11-05T08:03:00.005-05:00

Olympus has announced a new digital PEN camera, the Olympus E-P2 (available for pre-order at Amazon). The major differences from the E-P1 are as follows:

Ability to use a new, high resolution add-on EVF
Black paint color under a glass coat

The Olympus add-on EVF looks to be a good bit larger than the GF1 add-on EVF, but based on specifications and early user reports, the added size comes with significantly improved resolution and quality. Here is a size comparison of the E-P2, GF1, and G1 approximately to scale:

Availability of the E-P2 has been reported as December or January.

Two new lenses were also announced and should be available in the first half of 2010:

M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6
M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 14-150mm F4.0-5.6

As noted above, the E-P2 is already available for pre-order at Amazon

Additional images:

Full coverage at 1001 Noisy Cameras.

Adobe Lightroom 3 Beta Noise Reduction

2009-10-26T05:56:00.001-05:00

The default noise reduction implementation in Adobe Lightroom has dramatically changed with the Adobe Lightroom 3 beta. High ISO rendering in the Lightroom 3 beta now resembles that of Raw Developer or Capture One more than it resembles that of Lightroom 2.

Here's an example using two 100% crops from an ISO 1600, 1/4s, f/5.5, 48mm image I took this weekend with the Panasonic GH1 and kit zoom in low light. On the left is the default LR2 conversion, on the right the default LR3 beta conversion:

The change is, to my eye, a significant improvement. For the first time, I am considering Adobe Lightroom as a first line RAW processing application.

'Best Camera' iPhone Application

2009-10-22T19:57:00.001-05:00

Seriously cool iPhone app created by Chase Jarvis:

Serious Use of Compact Camera Images in Graphic Design

2009-10-19T19:04:00.002-05:00

by Mayank Bhatnagar

As a graphic designer, I often design for organizations including non-governmental organizations working in the development sector and frequently receive images from clients for use in communication material as varied as brochures, websites, flyers, annual reports, newsletters, fact sheets and technical documents. I am fond of the imagery the development sector uses and often find it more interesting and natural than the slick, perfect and utopian imagery used by the marketing (fast moving consumer goods) and now information technology sectors.

In the past couple of years, for dozens of design assignments undertaken for development sector clients, I have rarely received 'technically perfect' images shot by professional photographers using high end equipment such as dSLRs. Most images I receive have been shot by clients / volunteers / students using compact cameras. And by compact cameras here I mean the most basic or budget compact cameras running on 'auto' mode. Noise, highlight clipping, channel clipping, colored fringing, blooming of highlights, poor dynamic range, excessive use of flash (and therefore harsh shadows) and color cast are just some of the technical issues I frequently encounter while shortlisting and processing the images for print and/or web publishing.

For a large design assignment, I typically receive an assortment of images (usually about two dozen or more) which are then categorized to match with text / report chapters / sections. Unless the technical quality of a particular image is unacceptable, I am forced to make do with what I have and each relevant image is then optimized for print. Thanks to powerful image processing software, each selected image usually goes through the following process:
- Resizing (usually downsizing), size of technically bad or blurred but important photos is usually reduced greatly, sometimes as small as 2x1 inches, to make them useable and hide some of the flaws. I prefer to convert images to 240 ppi resolution for print purposes.
- Noise reduction (usually applied to full-size images which are later downsized).
- Shadow and highlight recovery (using shadow-highlight sliders in Photoshop), adjustment of levels. Sometimes HDR techniques are used to process different parts of the image separately.
- Correction of color cast.
- Correction of horizontal plane, also barrel distortion and perspective in some cases.
- Correction of skin tones (often flashed faces come out reddish and are not easy to correct)
- Conversion to CMYK (for 4 color printing) or to Greyscale for one or two color printing.
Usually cropping decisions are taken at the page markup stage where I can see the image-text relationship accurately and crop images accordingly.

Images are almost always received as a part of the brief and for most development sector design assignments (with tight budgets), buying stock imagery or getting a professional shoot done is not an option. I think most reasonable :-) graphic designers learn to work under constraints and make do with what they are given.

A report and a newsletter designed for Chintan Environmental Research and Action Group using compact camera images. (Reproduced with permission from Chintan.)

As someone also doing serious and fine art photography with compacts for the past couple of years, this is where I fall into a dilemma. While on one hand I strive to capture technically sound images and am always on the lookout for the next compact that would raise the bar on my images, on the other hand as a designer I make do with images that I would reject outright for technical flaws if taken by me. Images used in important publications, which may be read and used by top national and international organizations, governmental agencies, funding agencies, think tanks and the like, taken with automatic point-and-shoot cameras I would not even look at! Thus I wonder if it is the image (the subject, the moment, the interrelationship of elements, the light, etc.) and the purpose for which it was taken that really matters and that the rest is essentially 'technical' and 'secondary', the bit photographers tend to worry too much about these days! Also, as someone who worked extensively with film / transparency scans uptill 3-4 years back, it feels great to receive compact digital camera images because they are far easier to process than traditional (drum or flatbed) scans and thankfully file sizes are much lighter!

One change I have noticed over the past couple of years with regard to imagery supplied by clients (for use in communication design) is that the 'number' of images coming in has increased dramatically and organizations that could earlier not afford expensive imagery or visual documentation of their projects now have enough 'workable' photos in their database. For this, a lot of credit should probably go to the recent boom in affordable, pocketable and easy-to-use compact cameras, which in my humble opinion, are making a big difference for organizations involved in development work and perhaps indirectly in the lives of people for whom they are working.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Mayank Bhatnagar is a Jaipur and New Delhi (India) based graphic designer, illustrator and photographer.

Sunday Thoughts about Gear Obsession

2009-10-18T09:05:00.002-05:00

Serious Compacts contributer Wouter Brandsma asks:

How come so many photographers are so obsessed with the newest camera, the latest feature? Why does it matter what camera was used for a photograph?

Read Wouter's thoughts and join the conversation at Wouter Brandsma Photography.

Real-life ISO 1600: Panasonic GH1, G1, and Canon S90

2009-10-18T08:03:00.006-05:00

Important note: An astute reader pointed out a significant mistake in the sample files used in this comparison. The S90 was shot at f/2.8, while the G1 and GH1 were at f/2. This means that the S90 sensor was given a stop less light, which invalidates the conclusions. I'll have a better, more controlled comparison up soon. Apologies for the error!

There has been quite a bit of hype about the Canon S90 high ISO noise performance. Some say it is right there with Micro Four Thirds in noise performance. Can it be true?

Reader's of this blog know that it is possible for any camera to have amazing noise performance. Simply pile on noise reduction, and noise will be very low. The real issue is how the detail and noise vary together at a particular shutter speed, f-stop, and ambient light level.

The S90 sensor is less than one fourth the size of a standard Four Thirds sensor as shown to scale below:

As such, we would expect a roughly two stop difference in high ISO detail versus noise between these two systems, similar to the two stop difference seen between Micro Four Thirds and 35mm full frame.

Before considering the Canon file, let's see how the Panasonic G1 and GH1 files differ. It is often said that the GH1 has significantly better noise performance than the G1. Some have put the difference at as much as a stop. Meanwhile, it is said that the GH1 suffers from shadow banding at high ISO, whereas the G1 and GF1 do not. I believe that most of the difference between the GH1 and G1 (and presumably GF1) comes down to the on-chip noise reduction.

There is no question that GH1 high ISO RAWs are "cooked", whereas G1 (and GF1 most likely) RAWs seem to be raw. As has been well documented on the DPReview forums, setting the GH1 film mode to -2 NR at ISO 1600 actually cooks more NR into the RAW file than does setting the film mode to +2 NR. I'm guessing that this on-chip NR makes the banding much more apparent, and that it actually is present but simply obscured by noise in the G1 and GF1 files.

In this example, I set the GH1 and Lumix 20 to ISO 1600, +2 NR (+2 is the least NR one can apply to GH1 high ISO RAW), 1/50s, f/2, and took a snap of my son Philip. The RAW file was processed in Iridient Software's Raw Developer, which adds no further NR or sharpening unless those settings are enabled. For the purposes of this comparison, those settings were disabled. Here's the resulting image (Click for larger version):

Now a snap with the same lens, same settings, same workflow, and G1 substituted for GH1 (bit of fooling with the white balance and black point in Raw Developer to get the picture looking more similar) (Click for larger version):

Here's a 100% crop from the GH1 shot:

Now the G1 crop:

If you look at the full-res version, you'll see banding in the GH1 file.

If you look carefully at the G1 full-res version, there's a bit of banding obscured by noise.

For comparison, I took the same snap with the Canon S90, also at ISO 1600, f/2 and 1/50s. I had to push the resulting RAW file in Digital Photo Professional (Canon's RAW processing app) to get it to the same apparent exposure as the Panasonic files. Like Iridient's Raw Developer, Canon's DPP seems to be an "honest" RAW converter in that it is possible to completely disable NR and sharpening. Here's the resulting resized image (Click for larger version):

The S90 crop:

The full-res S90 image is here.

Click here to download the RAW files used in this comparison.

Unlike the usual comparisons posted on this blog, these were done handheld without a tripod. I took enough snaps with each camera to know that handshake was not a significant factor in the selected representative images.

Canon S90 Barrel Distortion

2009-10-11T18:58:00.000-05:00

It's now a familiar story: Very fast lens, very small package. Where's the catch?

Here you go:

On the left, the RAW (CR2) file processed by Adobe Lightroom 2.5. On the left, the same RAW file processed in Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP).

Like the Panasonic LX3 which undoubtedly inspired its design, the Canon S90 has severe barrel distortion at its wide end. Completely expected but nonetheless disappointing.

Canon Powershot S90 IS Initial Impressions: Build Quality

2009-10-11T09:41:00.004-05:00

I admit to having a slight bias against Canon. Maybe it's the New Yorker in me, but I tend to root for the underdog. Despite this slight bias, I've purchased a lot of Canon cameras. More than any other brand. Thing is, Canon knows how to build a serious compact.

I'm impressed with the S90 build quality:

- Battery/SD door is firm and heavy duty
- Dial around lens has a good, smooth resistance with satisfying clicks at each adjustment
- Body is metal with no creaking or play
- Parts are tapered and well fitted without gaps, similar to an Apple laptop
- Flash extends and retracts without any sense of wobble
- Mode dial has the right amount of resistance and feels sturdy
- Buttons are all firm with good action
- On/off button is nicely recessed unlike *many* other compacts
- Good crisp feel, travel, and responsiveness to the shutter release
- Rear dial lacks resistance, but that has not been problematic in any way

Two small issues:

- The dial around the lens is plastic and has a touch of play.
- The LCD on my brand new S90 had a couple extremely fine/subtle scratches on it straight out of the box. This makes me wonder whether it scratches easily. Time will tell!

Did I mention that this camera is very compact? Here it is next to a GRD III. Please excuse the poor picture quality.

Canon S90 Now In Stock at Some Stores

2009-10-10T12:17:00.002-05:00

The new Canon Powershot S90 IS is beginning to show up in stock in some retailers. I was able to pick one up at Best Buy today. Apparently it was the only S90 left in any of the Boston area Best Buy locations. Preliminary impressions coming soon!

The S90 is currently listed as "In Stock" at Butterfly Photo via Amazon, whereas most other retailers are still showing status as "expecting delivery from Manufacturer..."

Link: Canon S90 at Butterfly Photo via Amazon

Illustration: Multi-Aspect Four Thirds Versus Standard Four Thirds

2009-10-08T05:46:00.003-05:00

I've gotten some emails expressing confusion regarding the difference between the multi-aspect ratio Four Thirds sensor in the Panasonic GH1 and the standard Four Thirds sensor found in all other Micro Four Thirds cameras. This illustration ought to clear it up.

On the left (first column), you can see the relative sizes of the GH multi-aspect ratio sensor (top) and the smaller standard Four Thirds sensor (bottom), each represented by white boxes.

In the second column, one can see that the portion of the GH1 sensor used for 4:3 aspect ratio (top) is the same size as the entire standard Four Thirds sensor (bottom). Thus the image captured will be the same when in 4:3 mode, regardless of whether one uses a standard Four Thirds or multi-aspect ratio sensor camera.

In the third and fourth columns, 3:2 and 16:9 respectively, the situation changes. Here, the GH1 uses the larger sensor to keep the lens diagonal angle of view unchanged regardless of aspect-ratio. In contrast, the standard Four Thirds sensor simply crops out a portion of the 4:3 capture to make the 3:2 or 16:9 image. As a result, the diagonal angle of view is less wide, and the megapixel count drops to a greater extent.

Click for larger version

Micro Four Thirds Camera Comparison Table

2009-10-07T10:04:00.000-05:00

There seems to be some confusion about the basic differences amongst the four currently available Micro Four Thirds cameras. I've tried to summarize the major points in the table below. Unique strengths and weaknesses are highlighted.

	Panasonic G1	Olympus E-P1	Panasonic GH1	Panasonic GF1
In-body image stabilization	No	Yes	No	No
Multi-aspect ratio sensor	No	No	Yes	No
Smallest size	No	Yes	No	Yes
Integrated EVF (best in class)	Yes	No	Yes	No
Available kit including OVF	No	Yes	No	No
Available add-on EVF	Not applicable	No	Not applicable	Yes
Autofocus with all standard 4/3 lenses via adapter	No	Yes	No	No
Faster autofocus	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Articulated LCD	Yes	No	Yes	No
On-board flash	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
High res LCD	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Video	No	720p Stereo	1080i Stereo	720p Mono
Kit zoom comments	-14-45mm -Larger than Olympus -Stabilized	-14-42mm -Collapsible (small) -Susceptible to blur at medium shutter speeds per Imaging-Resource	-14-140mm -Video optimized -Stabilized	-14-45mm -Larger than Olympus -Stabilized
Kit prime comments	Not available	17mm f/2.8 kit comes with OVF	Not available	20mm f/1.7 lens has strong early reviews
Anti-aliasing filter	Slightly weaker (more aliasing, better resolution)	Slightly stronger (less aliasing, lower resolution)	Slightly weaker (more aliasing, better resolution)	Slightly weaker (more aliasing, better resolution)
Control dials	One	Two	One	One
Art filters	No	Yes	No	No
Price	14-45 kit: $714	-14-42 kit: $800 -17mm kit: $900 (includes OVF)	14-140 kit: $1500	-14-45 kit: $900 -20mm kit: $900

GRD III Impressions / Review at Wouter Brandsma Photography

2009-09-30T17:10:00.000-05:00

Serious Compacts contributor Wouter Brandsma has posted his extended use impressions of the Ricoh GR Digital III over at his personal blog. Be sure to have a read to get his insights about this exciting camera and see some great photographs!

Link: Wouter photoblog - 'My final Ricoh GR Digital III impressions'

Face Detection

2009-09-27T10:27:00.001-05:00

As cameras get progressively loaded with new features, there will naturally be some push back from the old-fashioned types who enjoy the "authentic" photographic experience of manually controlling everything. Face detection may best exemplify the new wave of features which so many of us have smugly dismissed as useless. However, as Björn Utpott recently suggested, it's difficult to argue against the usefulness of face detection when one has experienced a good implementation of it.

Here's a simple example. I mounted the Zuiko 17mm lens on the Panasonic GH1 in 'P' mode and snapped four photos, two in 'Dynamic B&W' mode and two in 'Standard' (color). All were in camera JPEGs with automatic exposure. On the left, you can see the results using face detection. On the right are the results using center point AF to focus on my wife, followed by recomposition.

Sure, the same can be easily accomplished the same without face detection. One can judge the lighting and dial in exposure compensation on just about any camera. Some cameras will allow spot metering, which can accomplish much the same, and still others allow customization in how metering is linked to focus points. However, there is a beautiful simplicity to having the camera automatically properly expose any detected faces in the frame.

I'm not yet sure where features like face detection fit for me. I'll always enjoy the fully manual experience, but new features like face detection have their place. I expect that DVIL (direct view interchangeable lens) cameras will continue to lead the way in implementing these technologies.

Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 Review at DPReview

2009-09-25T05:57:00.000-05:00

DPReview has published their review of the Lumix 20mm f/1.7, which is arguably one of the most important lens releases ever for any camera system. It is one of DPR's finest lens reviews yet in my opinion. Check it out here.

Featured Photographer: Vern Dewit

2009-09-23T05:27:00.007-05:00

While browsing the 'Buy and Sell' forum at Fred Miranda, I came across a thread which began, "Due to my never ending quest for the perfect hiking / mountaineering camera I am selling my GH1 in anticipation of my new GF1 and the recent acquiring of an Olympus EP1". After seeing the photographs in that thread started by Vern Dewit, I went and had a look at his Zenfolio gallery and asked to feature his work on Serious Compacts.

Vern lives in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and enjoys spending time outdoors in the Rocky Mountains west of the city. Looking at his photography, it's easy to see why. A few of his recent photographs, all taken with the GH1 (and various Micro Four Thirds kit lenses) are shown below. Click a photo to view a larger version.

You can see more of Vern Dewit's photography at http://verndewit.com. If you'd like to buy his GH1, which was used to make most of the photographs in his '2009 Favorites' collection, see the Fred Miranda thread here.

Sigma DP2 Shootout Supplement: Bokeh

2009-09-23T05:02:00.004-05:00

For bokeh (out-of-focus blur rendering) tests, I usually like to have a second lens for comparison. However, I currently lack another 40mm equivalent lens to compare with the DP2 lens, so I'll just provide some bokeh samples to give an idea of how the DP2 lens renders out-of-focus blurred areas. Unlike lens sharpness, one can get a sense of bokeh from images resized for the web. I'll point out a few other concerns in specific examples.

F/2.8:

While the DP2 lens has decent flare resistance, it flares more than the DP1 lens in my experience. The above photo shows flare with a stong off-axis light source. The hood was employed, and no filter was present. You can also see a blue-green discoloration on the wall in the upper right aspect of the frame.

F/4:

F/2.8:

F/4:

Looking at the right side of the frame, you can see how points of light are rendered sharply as heptagons at this aperture. Some blue-green discoloration is also evident in periphery on the wall.

F/5.6:

There is the occasional doubling of elements, but overall I find the DP2 bokeh to be neutral and generally pleasing.

The issue of blue-green drift in the corners/periphery was present with the DP1 and effectively addressed in a Sigma Photo Pro update. As of yet, the issue persists with DP2 files but is rarely a major issue and can be addressed in postprocessing. A few examples of color in DP2 photos from a recent day out with the family are shown below (click to enlarge).

Sigma DP2 Shootout Pt. 3 - Dynamic Range

2009-09-19T14:19:00.001-05:00

In Part 3 of the shootout, we'll take a look at how the Sigma DP2 dynamic range compares to that of the Panasonic GH1 and M. Zuiko 17mm f/2.8.

Readers of this site may recall that the DP1 showed superior dynamic range in an earlier shootout, but the GH1 arguably features the latest and greatest Four Thirds sensor technology to date. How will they compare?

I chose a nearly impossible scene for the sake of comparison. At noon, without a cloud in the sky, there is probably no digital camera that can fully handle this dynamic range in a single exposure:

For comparison, we'll be looking specifically at the two regions highlighted by the yellow boxes above.

Test conditions:

The GH1 was used in 3:2 aspect ratio.
Subject distance was adjusted to match framing with the two systems.
GH1 files were processed in Lightroom (latest version) and subsequently downsized using Photoshop Bicubic Sharper to match the native dimensions of the DP2 files.
DP2 files were processed in Sigma Photo Pro (latest version).
All settings were left on defaults. White balance was not adjusted to match colors, though I experimented with this and found that doing so did not substantially affect the results.

To begin with, a single RAW file was taken with each camera at ISO 100, f/5.6, and 1/50s.

Here are the crops without any exposure adjustments during RAW processing:

Clearly the DP2 is holding highlights better here. The black points are different, but you can actually see the shadow detail better in the DP2 file. This is evident in the stones under the deck (bottom panel).

Now let's see how much highlight detail can be recovered with a -2EV adjustment during RAW processing:

One possible explanation for the much greater highlight detail in the DP2 file is that what Sigma is calling ISO 100 corresponds to a lower actual ISO than what Panasonic is calling ISO 100. This would result in the DP2 file being underexposed relative to the GH1 file.

If that were the reason for the disparity, we would expect greater usable shadow detail in the GH1 file. Let's see what happens when the same files are pushed to +2EV during RAW conversion:

The greater shadow detail is now even more apparent in the DP2 file.

Conclusion: Under identical circumstances at base ISO, a DP1 RAW file simultaneously delivers greater highlight and greater shadow detail.

Next lets see how the two systems handle the same scene at ISO 400, f/11, 1/50s.

Here are the crops without any exposure adjustments during RAW processing:

The same files after a -2EV adjustment during RAW conversion:

Interesting that the ISO 400 DP2 file with a -2EV adjustment retains more highlight information than the ISO 100 DP2 file with a -2EV adjustment. We saw this in the DP1 shootout as well. It suggests that the high ISO DP files are being (partially or fully) pushed in SPP.

Now the same files after a +2EV adjustment during conversion:

Both files are struggling to produce any usable shadow information here. In the top panel, the DP2 still seems to do better.

The bottom line for ISO 400 is unchanged from the bottom line for ISO 100: better dynamic range from the Sigma.

The RAW files used in this comparison can be downloaded below:

New Site for Micro Four Thirds Reviews

2009-09-17T08:52:00.000-05:00

Many in the Serious Compacts community are excited about the new Micro Four Thirds standard. Now there is a site dedicated to nothing but Micro Four Thirds reviews. Check it out at M43reviews.com.

The End of an Era

2009-09-16T03:04:00.013-05:00

For almost year now I’ve been shooting with both a conventional DSLR system and a Micro Four Thirds camera. I need a system that is both serious and relatively compact; if I’m not leaving specifically to take photos, I don’t want to be encumbered by photographic gear. I also don’t want to be in the position of having to leave the house without a camera because it is too bulky.

When I owned a Nikon D300 and several lenses as well as a Panasonic LX3, I used both interchangeably. The LX3 was a good camera to have along on a daily basis. The Nikon was used for assignments shooting indoor events as well as on trips abroad. I did find the D300 too heavy on trips where I lugged it around the whole day, but image quality was very good. I continued to take it along on trips because the LX3’s small sensor didn’t provide me with the image quality I was after. There just isn’t as much latitude in post processing as with files from a larger sensor.

First Micro Four Thirds Camera
Things changed when I bought a Panasonic G1 almost a year ago. Without thinking about it, I always tended to use the G1. The LX3 was used rarely, only when I couldn’t take the larger camera bag with the G1 in it. The D300 saw no use except for three paid assignments. For most of my shooting, the G1’s image quality is sufficient and in my opinion the files are not that much inferior to those produced by the larger APS-C sensor in the Nikon D300.

The gap in image quality between the two cameras narrowed even further when I bought the excellent Lumix G 7-14 wide angle zoom. Contrast and sharpness of that lens are both superb. I began to wonder if I would ever use my DSLR for anything but paid assignments, as I couldn’t see myself leaving the house without the, by now much used, 7-14.

So my DSLR became essentially a system for the occasional assignment. I feel that overall lag times are still a little too high with Micro Four Thirds cameras to be used indoors under non-controlled conditions (not posed).

This summer, I sold the entire Nikon system. I replaced it once more with a DSLR, this time the Pentax K-7, thinking that perhaps a more compact DSLR would see more use in my private photography. I chose two primes, with equivalent focal lengths of 60 and 105mm, focal lengths which I tend to shoot with a lot on assignments. I’ll also mention briefly that both lenses needed to be painstakingly adjusted for back-focus, something which is of course not an issue with cameras that rely on contrast detect AF.

By now I had also replaced the G1 with the GH1, at first mostly because of its 28-280mm equivalent kit lens wasn’t available separately. But I grew to like this camera even more than the G1.

On Assignment
Last week I had an assignment shooting an indoor corporate event. I shot with the Pentax K-7, its two primes and the GH1 with its 14-140 kit lens. A flash was mounted on both cameras; a more serious full size flash on the Pentax and the diminutive Panasonic FL220 on the GH1. The indoor lighting was so poor, that most shots had to be taken with a flash. When it wasn't too hectic, I sometimes alternated between the cameras, using them for the same type of photo.

In terms of responsiveness, the Pentax sure feels faster, despite me having turned off post capture review on the Panasonic. The K-7 seemed like it was always ready to take another photo, with minimal lag in between. When a guest asked to see a photo, the Pentax would immediately be able to display an image, even after taking multiple shots in quick succession. The Panasonic wouldn't allow you to enter review mode while it was still writing files to the card. So guests had to wait a few moments.

Focus was hardly a fair contest with he much brighter primes on the K-7. The GH1 contrast detect AF struggled at times, but ended up having a high proportion of in-focus shots. Results with the GH1 were really good when/if the camera's face detection was able to detect a face. In that case, the camera's AF not only locked on the face, but exposure metering was dead on even with back lighting. Unfortunately, if the light was poor and/or the face turned sideways face detection wouldn't always work.

I see great potential for face detection technology. When that technology is developed further, it should be able to overcome focus and metering issues associated with conventional DSLR systems that do not meter and focus off the main sensor.

Although fast, the Pentax struggled with the back lighting, sometimes focusing incorrectly, even though I had chosen the AF point manually. The lights behind the bar also tended to fool the K-7 metering more easily, and I had to compensate manually.

The viewfinders both have their advantages; an optical one has no lag and allows you to see nuances of expression. But the EVF's amplified image was also helpful at times, as was the ability to judge exposure before the photo was taken. The GH1's articulated screen allowed me to take some shots without the subjects really being aware that I was about to take a photo.

Consequences
In the end, the GH1 did reasonably well. I suspect that the GH1 would be able to lock onto subjects better in dim lighting with a brighter lens. There’s also no reason why contrast detect AF speed and accuracy won’t be improved in future Micro Four Thirds models, nor why lag times can’t be reduced.

Image quality certainly wasn’t an issue at all; the GH1 performed very well compared to the K-7. While the K-7’s files appear to have more dynamic range, ISO performance seems similar at any given exposure, aperture and shutter speed (there is a more than 1 stop difference in the two camera’s stated ISOs). These are subjective conclusions based on processing a lot of similar RAW files, and not on accurate testing.

In the end, I feel that micro Four Thirds is quite good as it is and shows a lot of potential for further improvement in the future. Good enough for my needs that I don’t need a second system camera. For those rare times that I do, I can borrow or loan a DSLR.

So my Pentax K-7 and its lenses are being sold as I write this article. I’ll use part of the money to purchase a GF1 + 20/1.7 kit to replace the LX3 as well. The result will be a single system with body and lens combinations that range from quite compact (GF1 + 20/1.7) to very versatile but larger (GH1 + 7-14 + 14-140)…and everything in between.

Sigma DP2 Shootout Pt. 2 - Detailed Scene

2009-09-15T18:51:00.003-05:00

In part 2 of the Sigma DP2 shootout, we'll look at how the DP2 lens performs at a variety of apertures and compare the overall detail captured by the DP2 with that of the Panasonic GH1 and Olympus M. Zuiko 17mm f/2.8 lens.

To begin, I'll explain my choice of RAW processors. The DP2 files were processed using Sigma Photo Pro (latest version) because there are no other RAW processors which demosaic DP2 files at this time. The GH1 files, on the other hand, can be processed using a number of different applications. I chose to use Adobe Lightroom (latest version) because it automatically addresses the considerable barrel distortion of the M. Zuiko lens. In doing so, one loses some resolution, and the blurriest extreme corners of the image get cropped out, but overall I think it gives the fairest comparison to the Sigma DP2.

How much do processing decisions affect apparent detail? Here's an example of an f/2.8 center 100% crop processed with Lightroom (right) compared to the same file processed for maximum apparent detail in Raw Developer (left):

Most of the difference there comes down to sharpening, though I do find that Raw Developer squeezes out a touch more detail. This is true for every camera I have tried to date.

Other testing details:

Subject distance adjusted for roughly the same framing with each camera (greater distance for the longer lens)
GH1 used in 3:2 aspect ratio
DP2 files upsized using Genuine Fractals 5 to match the native GH1 picture dimensions
Tripod, self-timer, base ISO, aperture-priority exposure, good light (high shutter speed)

Even looking at just the resized left half of the scene, there is a clear difference between the DP2 and GH1-17mm files at f/2.8:

Let's look next at the 100% crop comparisons, keeping in mind that the DP2 files have been upsized to match the GH1 file sizes.

f/2.8

Center:

More detail in the GH1 file as would be expected with the higher megapixel sensor.

Near edge:

DP2 outclassing the M. Zuiko here and also showing greater lens contrast. There is some color fringing in the GH1 crop.

Extreme corner:

Impressive wide open performance from the DP2 in the extreme corner of the frame while the M. Zuiko lags far behind. Again there is some color fringing in the GH1 crop.

f/4

Center:

GH1-17mm looking very good here with the lens resolving sufficiently to take advantage of the higher megapixel sensor.

Near edge:

Zuiko has caught up here in peripheral performance.

Extreme corner:

The Zuiko has improved but has a ways to go still.

f/5.6

Center:

As expected, the higher GH1 sensor is still capturing more detail at this aperture.

Near edge:

Still very close in this zone.

Extreme corner:

DP2 still has an edge in the extreme corner.

f/8

Center:

GH1-17mm still has an edge, but diffraction is bring the level of detail down closer to that of the DP2.

Near edge:

DP2 looks the better of the two here.

Extreme corner:

DP2 is clearly better.

Conclusions:

The Sigma DP2 lens has balanced performance across the frame wide open at f/2.8, and by f/4 even the extreme corner peformance is quite good. Anything less would have been a disappointment given the precedent set by the outstanding DP1 lens.
The M. Zuiko 17mm lens leverages the GH1 sensor potential in the center of the frame from f/2.8, puts in a decent peripheral performance stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6, but never quite nails the extreme corner.
Softening due to diffraction is evident at f/8 with the Micro Four Thirds kit and not with the DP2.
There seems to be higher lens contrast with the DP2 although the contribution of processing by Sigma Photo Pro cannot be ascertained. Application of wide-radius unsharp mask to a GH1 file gives it a similar look to that of the DP2 files.

Short Ricoh GR Digital 3 impression

2009-09-14T10:04:00.005-05:00

By Wouter Brandsma

While Amin is working on a Ricoh GR Digital III test sample and comparing it with other cameras I received a test sample from Ricoh Europe. My aim is to come up with a similar written impression of this camera like I did with the GX100 and the GX200. I will post a more lengthly impression of the new Ricoh GR Digital III soon, but I thought it wouldn’t harm to write down some first impressions of this camera.

I always thought that my Ricoh GX200 felt like a quality camera, well to be honest it still is, but the GRD is certainly a step beyond that. The camera has a lovely, quality feel with a nice non-slippery finish as a result of the magnesium body. The camera has the typical Ricoh handgrip and all buttons are logically placed, almost logical in fact, but more about that later.

I have never had any other Ricoh GR Digital camera although I have certainly considered it. Eventually I chose the Ricoh GX100 in 2007, because of the stepped zoom lens. Making it slightly more versatile. I still think I should have followed my heart and should have picked up the GR Digital I though. So remember this! Even though many consider reviews by professional reviewers the bench mark for the scientific proof of the quality of a camera, I have learned to be completely in rational with regard to deciding cameras. In the end you are going to take the pictures with it and you will use and push the camera beyond the brick walls and color charts at different ISO's. Real world is totally different in my opinion.

I still have the original GR camera though, the Ricoh GR1 which became a true cult camera, in particular in Japan. The most distinctive features of the GR series are the lightweight magnesium body, a high class 28mm lens and easy to use handling. And to me, the Ricoh GR Digital III forms no exception.

From the outside the camera hardly differs from the other GR Digitals. It is only a bit larger to host the slightly larger sensor. And on the rear you will notice the larger 3" LCD screen with 920,000 dots. Also this third generation GR Digital has no optical viewfinder. Now some say that we should live with that. A fact of life for small compact cameras, but I much rather prefer a smaller LCD screen and a little increase in camera body height to accommodate a nice bright viewfinder. But I guess I am old school. Therefore I requested Ricoh to supply the camera with an optical viewfinder. I asked for the GV-1 viewfinder which is quite large and not only has the frame lines for 28mm, but also for 21mm to match the view with the GW-2 21mm Wide Conversion Lens. Probably due to huge demand in Japan Ricoh doesn't have the wide conversion lens in stock now, but I hope I will get before I finished testing this camera.

While mentioning the supply difficulties of the GW-2 I should mention too that Ricoh was completely surprised by the pre-sales in Japan. These were much larger than anticipated and was part too of the reason to offset the sale date basically everywhere else. The camera is now on sale pretty much anywhere, although I haven't seen this camera available in the Netherlands, where I live, yet (mid September).

Like Panasonic with the LX3 and Canon with the new G11 Ricoh was able to get a new sensor that has less pixels than the previous version. In combination with the better in-camera image engine and the fast lens, this will improve the low light capabilities and high ISO performance. This is an important change in the market of serious compacts and I hope it will be followed by others. But what makes this camera unlike any other compact camera is the new 28mm lens with a maximum opening of f/1.9. It used to be f/2.4 (thank you Fabian)! An outstanding technical achievement in my opinion.

So, before this short impression ends up being a longer impression I will sum up some of my likes and dislikes with the new Ricoh GR Digital III.

Likes
Overall speaking I really like this camera. The feel and the handling makes it very special. In combination with the large and bright GV-1 viewfinder it is a joy to use. I can fully understand why the pre-sales where so high in Japan. Using this camera reminds me picking up the GR1 for the first time when I got it to replace my SLR. For me it still is a cult camera with all the subjective feelings that contribute for me to that status.

The best of all is the new lens. Such a fast lens is a bonus for low light and with the better high ISO performance I have had no problems using this camera at higher ISO's, even up to ISO 1600. That is something I never did with the GX200, because of all the noise and banding.

Dislikes
There is no perfection in my opinion and also the GRDIII reminds me of that. Quality comes at a price and Amazon prices the GRDIII for $699. That sure is a lot of money in my opinion, but it is a cult camera with superb built quality, top materials, and a stellar lens. While some love the new 3" LCD screen, because they only photograph with the LCD screen. It is just too large for me. To get such a large sensor in the body they had to move the buttons further to the right rear section of the camera. Although they glad fully didn't change the button lay-out I regularly hit the display and macro button with my right thumb. Something that never happens to me with the GX200.

I leave it for here and will continue evaluating this camera for some time. I hope to post my final impressions of this camera by the end of this month. Interested to read more about this camera? You might want to check out the Ricoh site.

All photographs by Wouter Brandsma

2010 Micro Four Thirds Lens Roadmap: What's Missing?

2009-09-13T09:27:00.000-05:00

With any new system, it is impossible to cover all lens needs right away. Thus manufacturers need to prioritize according to commonly used lens types and market demand.

Here's what we have so far for Micro Four Thirds:

Ultra-wide:

Lumix 7-14mm f/4 (difficult to locate in United States)
Lumix 8mm f/3.5 (fisheye, due in 2010)

Wide:

M. Zuiko 17mm f/2.8
Lumix 14mm f/2.8 (due in 2010)

Standard:

Lumix 20mm f/1.7 (due soon)
M. Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6
Lumix 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 O.I.S.
Lumix HD 14-140mm f/4-5.8 O.I.S.

Telephoto:

Lumix 45-200mm f/4-5.6 O.I.S.
Lumix 100-300mm f/4-5.6 O.I.S.
Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 O.I.S. (1:1 macro, due soon)

So what's missing? That depends on who you ask, but I find it curious that neither Four Thirds nor Micro Four Thirds have a standard portrait lens in the lineup. Sure one can use the Zuiko Digital 50mm f/2 macro, but that lens is slow to focus, requires an adapter, and has a smaller maximum aperture than I'd like in a lens which should ideally be suited to indoor situational photography. The recently announced Leica 45/2.8 will also likely be a good portrait lens but again on the slow side. We also have the Sigma 50/1.4, but that too requires an adapter is quite a heavy lens to pair with a Micro Four Thirds camera and standard lens.

What I'd like to see is a high quality optic with the following characteristics:

Fixed focal length between 37.5mm and 67.5mm
At least f/1.8 speed and preferably f/1.4
Quick autofocus

What else is missing from the roadmap? What lens would you like to see for your Micro Four Thirds camera?

Sigma DP2 Shootout Pt. 1 - Form and Function

2009-09-12T14:06:00.002-05:00

Size

Sigma created the category of large-sensor compact camera and presently remain the only company with a fixed lens large-sensor camera on the market. Amongst all current large-sensor cameras, the DP2 is the second most compact, closely following the DP1.

In contrast to any Micro 4/3 camera-lens combo, a DP2 without hood or accessory optical viewfinder (OVF) will fit in a standard pants pocket. However, the DP2 is no shirt pocket camera.

Here's how the DP2 compares in size and shape with an advanced small sensor compact, the Ricoh GR Digital (GRD) III:

Compared to the Panasonic GH1 and M. Zuiko 17mm f/2.8:

Keep in mind that the DP2 sensor is intermediate in size between that of a Micro 4/3 camera and that of a 1.5x crop APS-C camera such as that of Samsung NX or Nikon APS-C.

Lets see how the DP2 compares in size to a small Nikon APS-C rig:

Build quality

The Sigma DP2 is extremely light when compared to any Micro Four Thirds combination and featherweight in comparison to any DSLR gear. This has led a number of observers to state that it feels "cheap". Likely the nondescript looks also contribute to this assessment. In contrast, I appreciate the lack of weight hanging around my neck and don't find anything wanting in the DP2 build quality. There is no give or creak in the DP2 body. Dials, controls, and battery door are all solid. Accessories such as the optional OVF and hood snap are likewise nicely fitted.

Look and sound

With regards to looks, Sigma has chosen a serious and discreet appearance. I'd prefer something with a bit more flair, but many will prefer the staid DP.

Like the DP1, the DP2 makes an unpleasant noise when extending the lens and is a bit noisier than I'd like when autofocusing. The shutter click is very quiet and unlikely to be noticed.

Controls and usability

The DP2 is boxy, but I find it very comfortable to grip and use for an extended period. Controls are well designed though not outstanding. Compare to the recently announced Leica X1 (images carefully resized to proper scale):

To give the DP2 its due, the primary apparent exposure parameters - aperture, shutter speed, and ISO - are all readily available during use of the camera, which is more than I can say for a number of serious compacts. In manual exposure mode, the rocker switch controls shutter speed which the left/right buttons (on the four way controller) determine aperture settings. In aperture priority mode, the rocker controls aperture, and left/right controls exposure compensation. The 'QS' button gives rapid access to ISO control. Simple and effective. One niggle is that auto ISO will select only from ISO 100-400. I would prefer to be able to choose the top ISO as is possible on the GH1 and D5000.

The LCD display, widely criticized with the DP1, remains below average for a camera of this class. It's not a show stopper for me, but a better LCD would be welcome. Here you can see the LCD of the DP1 (left) compared with that of the GRD III (right) with both at their default brightness:

Operational speed

Autofocus remains on the slow side, slower than that of the GH1 with M. Zuiko 17mm lens (which itself doesn't focus as quickly as the G1 kit zoom) and slower also than the GRD III. The DP2 focus also struggles more in low light than those other two cameras. That said, the DP2 focus is accurate and is quicker when one limits the focus range to farther distances by selecting the landscape focus mode. As with the DP1, a focus confirmation light is visible without removing one's eye from the OVF.

Manual focus is well implemented. I prefer the DP2 focus wheel to the manual focus implementation on the GH1 or GRD III because there is a visible, palpable control by which one can reliably scale focus at medium and small aperture settings.

Pressing the 'OK' button (with the latest firmware) gives a magnified view for manual focus. I'd prefer if Sigma would have the display automatically present a magnified view whenever the manual focus dial is turned, as is the case by default with the GH1. However the current DP2 implementation is very good.

The buffer has been improved from that of the DP1. One can now take photos in RAW with a shot-to-shot time of approximately 2.5 seconds, which is short enough for me although a two shot buffer without waiting would be even better.

In Part 2 of this shootout-based review, we'll take a look at lens performance.

Update on the Sigma DP2 - Olympus E-P1 Shootout

2009-09-11T08:46:00.000-05:00

As some of you know, Sigma has been kind enough to loan me a DP2 for some time now. The DP series is truly unique with only the recently announced Leica X1 presenting a similarly specified competitor in this class.

I had hoped to obtain an Olympus E-P1 and 17mm kit for a direct shootout with the Sigma DP2, and Olympus had assured me that I would have a kit available by the end of August. Unfortunately they don't yet have one for us, and I don't want to keep folks waiting any longer. Therefore I'll be doing a shootout based review of the Sigma DP2 using other cameras for comparison, namely the Panasonic GH1 with M. Zuiko 17/2.8, Ricoh GRD III, and Nikon D5000. If I can get an Canon S90 before the GRD III has to go back to Japan, I'll do a separate shootout between those two exciting compacts.