New Technology - Going Backwards?

If you use the Gregorian calendar, which of course most of us do, then we're into another year. Looking back over the last one there have been quite a few little surprises that have arrived in the digital camera world. Nothing really amazing that has turned things on their head and made what has gone before look old-fashioned or crude, but enough to make it feel as if standards have moved on. Which they have in many areas. However the conundrum is that this doesn't necessarily mean that picture taking is easier than ever, for in some cases the reverse is actually the case and poses the question - is advancing camera technology actually taking camera use backwards? This is the question we are now asking ourselves after reading some recent reviews of Canon's new 7D DSLR coupled with our experiences with a new digicam we recently acquired, also coincidently from Canon, the budget level (or value for money depending on how you view it), 10mp SX120IS. This is aimed primarily at those who simply wanted to point-and-shoot, but with nearly as many options as our DSLR's for those who don't on the odd occasion and want to take full control. As a small go anywhere digicam using AA batteries it was just what we wanted as an alternative to our DSLR's.

The problem was that in our eyes it didn't really perform when using the basic default settings of program exposure, evaluative metering, large area AF, and the results were often pretty disappointing despite having digic 4 processing. Over-exposed images were the norm and even nice blue skies got washed out. Adding the new i-contrast feature (digital range optimization) only made matters worse, and nothing seemed to alleviate the disappointingly high levels colour fringing seen at all contrast levels.

Although we have often warned in these pages that the ever increasing sensor pixel levels in digicams - the same situation is now being repeated with DSLR's - wasn't bringing better image quality we were quite shocked as to what the camera delivered. Especially in contrast to our recent new camera-phones, which may only be 3mp, but at least could be relied upon to deliver reasonably accurately exposed images which were devoid of any sign of colour fringing, as are our older digicams. Now we know colour fringing is basically a result of pixels that are just too small in size and optics that can't deliver the image quality that they demand and is now often removed in software, but if others can do this why doesn't the much vaunted digic 4 also deliver it? It's even present in images from the new 18mp 7D going by the review images we have seen.

The over-exposure of images using evaluative metering has also shown up as a problem with the 7D in some reviews, and the reasons why have some correlation with the SX120IS. The basic idea of evaluative metering, (or multi-zone with other camera makes), is that it takes the whole scene into account and doesn't allow any one particular area to dominate and thus 'skew' the exposure, causing the scene to either over or under expose. 

But this isn't happening now thanks to the tying of the multi-zone metering to the AF, which is being implemented right across the camera makes as default with both digicams and DSLR's. This is partly to do with the 'face recognition' AF option that many cameras are now being equipped with. You've always been able to do this in recent times with many DSLR's as an option, tie the metering to the AF point selected, but we've never done this simply because what you then end up with isn't evaluative metering at all, but selective spot metering. Now spot metering has it's uses, but they apply in specific circumstances and setting it as default use (which is the end result) under normal general picture taking will lead in many situations to massive under-exposure or over-exposure of images.

The problem is that this coupling of the AF and evaluative metering seemingly can't be broken on these newer cameras as another review discovered. As both we with the SX120IS and the reviews of the 7D found the answer with both cameras ended up being the same, going backwards in time to before evaluative metering existed, and reverting to using centre-weighted average metering. This is the metering pattern which the newer multi-zone metering patterns were meant to be an improvement on by taking more of the total image scene into account. With evaluative metering tied to the AF this no longer occurs. It appeared that this course of action, using centre-weighted average, (which isn't of course tied to the AF), produced more reliable and consistent image quality in respect of the 7D, and this is certainly the case with the SX120IS. So the default tying of AF point and evaluative metering isn't a step forward, especially without the ability to break it, and means instead making a step back. We are just glad we bought a digicam with a full range of metering options and feel sorry for all those users who don't have this option.

Considering these problems it's little wonder there are so many complaints these days with regard to poor and erratic image quality, and dissatisfaction with the cameras that have been purchased. Using improving technology to make things work better is a situation that has always occurred. But arranging things so that they actually end up worse is in no ones best interests. 

Add-on electronic viewfinders

Have you noticed them? These add-on EVF's that slip into a camera's hotshoe, they're everywhere all of a sudden, well it seems like it anyway. Having done away with optical viewfinders to reduce camera size and save on production costs it now seems there is no better option, they are the last word in flexibility of operation, and no self respecting digicam that's attempting to be a wolf in sheep's clothing - i.e. a DSLR in disguise - can afford not to have one it would appear. 

Whether consumers can afford them, these expensive, bulky, and poor substitutes for decent optical viewfinders, is another matter. But hey! Who really cares if the camera makers make lots of extra money out of selling something as an add-on extra that should really be part of a basic camera specification.

Cynical - what us? Oh perish the thought!

Olympus E-P2

In a what can only be seen as a 'us too' move Olympus have announced an upgraded E-P1, the E-P2, just five months after the E-P1 arrived. There isn't really a lot that has changed except the colour, which is now black, plus the arrival of the now almost obligatory slip-on EVF. 

This will of course pose a real dilemma for owners. How so? Well do they fit the viewfinder into the camera's hotshoe or the external flashgun, seeing as how the camera doesn't have an internal one, and you can't therefore use both at once. All they have to do is remember the mantra that cameras like this offer the real flexibility of use of a larger DSLR in a smaller size, and  keep repeating this sentence as they dole out £850 for the camera, EVF viewfinder, and 14-45mm lens. 

All we managed to obtain for this sum of money just 18 months ago - poor us -  was a Canon 10mp 400D DSLR with EF-S 18-55mm lens plus EF-S 55-250mm and EF-S 60mm macro lenses. Substitute the current Canon 1000D for the 400D and you still can. They do of course have a built-in optical viewfinder and flash. Mind you they are bigger than the E-P2 - unless of course you fit the EVF viewfinder or a flash unit. 

Ricoh GXR digicam system

Samsung might be promising that the NX digicam system will arrive this year, and rumours persist that both Sony and Canon are working on similar ventures, but Ricoh have beaten them all to the starting gate with a new digicam system that is an entirely different concept to that of micro-4/3rds. Whether it's any better, or indeed anything more than just an interesting concept is another matter.

Rather than produce a camera which can use interchangeable lenses, the GXR system uses sealed interchangeable modules containing both lens and sensor. So the system comprises of two distinct halves. The camera body with operating buttons, rear LCD screen, card slot, and image processing capabilities. And the lens/sensor module that is mounted onto it. The only connection between the two is electronic for the transfer of information. There is the metal mount of course, but this of a slide-to-lock-in-place design simply to hold the two units together firmly for positive electrical connection.

On the face of it the idea seems clever, and there is no doubt there are some advantages to be had. The sealed lens/sensor units mean that the depositing of dirt on the sensor face is effectively eliminated, and the lens and sensor can be optimized for use together. New camera or lens/sensor units can be interchanged with each other (we presume) in much the same way that current DSLR camera bodies and lenses can. 

What is really different about this system is that sensors of differing sizes will be used depending on the lens type in order to keep overall size down. The first two lens/sensor modules to be announced are for a 24-70mm lens using a small 10mp CCD and a 50mm macro using a large APS-C 12mp CMOS design. Others are apparently in the pipeline.

We have to say that we were quite impressed with the whole concept - until we happened to see the basic costs. At around £400 for the body and £330 for the 24-70 lens module it's far from cheap. Panasonic's LX3 digicam with similar specs costs around half that. And at £600 for the 50mm macro module the total cost of £1,000 with the body seems to be just a bit over the top. You could for example buy Canon's 1000D plus dedicated EFS 60mm macro for far less, just slightly more that the GXR macro lens alone costs, and you get the standard EF-S 18-55 IS thrown in as well. You can add around another £200 each for either an external flash or EVF.

These prices seem on a par with those asked for the new micro-4/3rds cameras, and like those just seem to destroy any notion that the system is an affordable alternative to either just buying an 'ordinary' digicam, or most small sensor DSLR's. What it's vitally important to bear in mind is that any talk of increased flexibility over a digicam only comes into being with the spending of considerable sums of money on extra alternative parts. This is where the flexibility advantage occurs. If you don't do this then there is none and you end up paying way over the odds for the notion of something you don't actually get.

Canon's G11 - and noise levels in general

The reviews of the new lower resolution 10mp Canon G11 digicam mostly seem to agree that noise levels are better than it's immediate predecessor the 14.7mp G10 by around 1 stop once past the base ISO speed. Whilst any improvement is welcome it isn't such a big one as to make an awful lot of difference in comparison to a larger sensor camera, be it digicam or DSLR. Many feel that the G10 is still the better camera with it's higher resolution, especially if you mainly use base ISO rates. However this doesn't mean all is lost for Canon in it's battle with the new larger sensor digicams because their noise levels at higher ISO's whilst slightly better - and there isn't a huge difference going by the high ISO samples we've seen - still don't reach the lower levels most ordinary APS-C DSLR's can produce as they still use smaller sensors and optics.

The level of noise any camera produces, for all the technology improvements that have occurred, still revolve around the size of the individual pixel sites on a sensor coupled with the quality of the optics used. So noise levels still tend to come down to a sliding scale basis with the smaller the sensor used the higher the noise, because as sensors increase in size so do the optics used. And the larger the optic the less demands are placed on it's elements area-wise.

This can be illustrated by using the same lens on both a FF DSLR and an APS-C one. Many lenses today can still be used on either type of body and are designed to do so. But tests have shown they will always perform better on the full frame body because less demands are placed on them. On a 12mp FF DSLR the sensors light delivery demands cover the whole area of the lens elements. Mounted on a 12mp cropped sensor body, an APS-C one, the light delivery demands are concentrated only on the central area, half the area of the FF sensor. Commonsense dictates that the lens can't suddenly produce higher resolving power because it's on a different camera, so that which is produced is divided between more pixels, a lower percentage to each one.

The situation that exists is that as sensors get smaller, lens resolving power needs to rise to help try and maintain the same level of image quality. This isn't going to change much in the future because it's a simple case of the laws of physics and what improvements are applied to small sensors and lenses can equally be given to larger ones thus maintaining the image quality difference gap.

Camera users are just going to have to accept that using smaller cameras with smaller sensors means higher noise levels, just as in the past the use of faster ISO film meant more grainy images.

Time flies - and digital image file advantages

Recently we finished digitizing another batch of our old slides, 1,200 this time around, using the methods we have outlined in our pages on digital camera film copying. In a way it was something of a surprise to realize just how long ago it was that we stopped using film entirely, which was back in 2001. It also helped to reinforce the many advantages that digital has to offer in often the most basic of ways.

We have always kept our negatives and slides categorized and in date order. However this is only of limited help when it comes to sorting through them as we rediscovered, (we'd forgotten how laborious sifting through individual slides could be compared to flicking through images on-screen), as the dates are those when the film/slides were actually processed. This isn't necessarily when the individual shots were taken on a roll, which might be some time apart, on another day perhaps, or even longer, and caused us quite some problems in some cases when trying to sort and save them. 

How much better and more flexible digital is, where files can be sorted into the actual time and date order they were taken thanks to EXIF data, and should you wish, extra tags can be added to aid sorting and searching. Perhaps best of all you don't of course have to take any more images than you need to at any one time, which often means that with film images that odd and completely out-of-context shots can end up at the end of a roll or set of slides.

Leica X-1

Not content with producing the 18mp full frame M9 rangefinder Leica have decided to offer a simple large sensor compact type camera for those wanting something slightly cheaper. There are it would seem an awful lot of this camera type appearing now. They all have one common aim. To provide larger sensor camera image quality in a smaller sized camera package. All the sensor sizes used to date are those found in the non-full-frame DSLR's, in other words from 4/3rds up to APS-C.

Leica's offering is similar to those from Sigma, using a non-interchangeable fixed focal length optic giving a moderate wide angle view (35mm equiv in this case) rather than the interchangeable lens offerings provided by others. At 12mp it has what could now be termed 'average' sensor resolution. However at around £2,000 the price, whilst it might be cheaper than the M9, is anything but average and can't be described as anything other than expensive.

Considering this is a Leica this wouldn't be so bad except for one very important point, the camera's performance, which would appear from reviews to be a bit of a mixed bag. Good if you like shooting Raw, but no better than average if you don't and stick to Jpeg, with slow AF that stops working in low light, and slow general camera speed in respect of processing etc. It does have some benefits. There's a proper optical viewfinder, a built in flash, and all features, what few there are, have separate access buttons.

We suppose that someday in the not to distant future the ideal compact large sensor digicam will appear, one that actually performs as good as it looks, but as with others that have arrived to date all that can be said is that this isn't it.

Canon give PMA a miss

Canon have decided that they won't be at the annual PMA (Photo Marketing Association) show this year and instead will concentrate on the CES (Consumer Electronics Show). This is apparently because the CES seems more relevant to their business interests across the board. That digital cameras are now viewed as just another type of electronic goods rather than optical goods using electronics, (which film cameras were in their later stages), is a subtle but immensely crucial difference.

This change of basic direction is being seen in many ways with regard to cameras today although it might not at first seem readily apparent. Much effort is being made to replace wherever possible expensive to make optical components with cheaper electronic versions. Electronic viewfinders are the most visible result of this but there are others. It's a trend that is set to continue. We wouldn't be surprised to find a situation arising where in the not-too-distant future the only cameras still having an optical viewfinder and reflex mirror/pentaprism will be those very expensive offerings made for the professional end of photography.

Pentax K-x 12mp DSLR

This camera would seem to carry on the tradition of Pentax digital SLR's. It's small, well made, has a wide range of features and options, and generally produces good image quality, buts gets let down by one or two crucial factors which affect how it handles and performs. In this particular case it has a tendency to clip highlights more than most, and doesn't indicate where the AF points are in the viewfinder. 

Now to our mind anyone who goes to the trouble and expense of purchasing a mid-range DSLR, (or any DSLR come to that), wants at the very least to know where the camera is focusing. It's already becoming abundantly clear that the newer multi-point AF systems don't always deliver the goods because where they actually choose to focus can be a bit of a lottery. They aren't omnipotent, and rely entirely on how they have been programmed to react to any given scene. (Canon AF for example is set to choose the nearest point of focus, wherever in the frame that might be).

Having a camera like the K-x, which has a choice of AF point modes, 11 area, centre point, or selectable, is certainly advisable, so you can fine tune the AF system to your personal needs and the way you like to work. But having these options is only half the job if there's no indication of where the individual AF points are, or what any one of them would be focusing on in any particular scene if chosen. How the heck do you decide which one to use if you've no idea where they are located?

The clipping of highlights is another problem that's common across the digital camera spectrum, and is perhaps more widespread with digicams than DSLR's thanks to narrower DR ranges. It's usually considered as a sensor capability and metering problem but is also a result of processing choices. If a camera is to produce bright and punchy images with good contrast something has to give when the DR range isn't wide enough to cope, and highlight loss is the most visible sign. Camera makers tried to reduce this by using lower contrast, and in the main got criticized for the dull images that resulted.

Where the K-x apparently scores is in having the best low-light-level performance of any APS-C sensor DSLR to date. Whether this is enough to offset the negative points that it has is down to individual preference. Why is it that Pentax keep producing really good DSLR's like this with all the options you could want, yet fall down over what could be seen these days as the basics?  Beats us. 

Adobe updates

There have been quite a few Adobe software updates recently. Mostly it's concerned with providing Raw processing for the latest cameras to arrive. Adobe has released Photoshop Camera Raw 5.6, Lightroom 2.6 and DNG Converter 5.6 for immediate download. The updates fix minor issues and provide additional Raw support for 20 more DSLR's, including the Canon EOS 7D and Nikon D3s, with additional DNG support for the Leica M9 and Ricoh GXR. It also appears that a beta of Lightroom 3 is available.

Whilst of course there is little doubt that Adobe produce one of the most capable Raw converters around, it's also sobering to note that now, because of all the corrections applied to Jpeg processed files in respect of noise levels, lens aberrations and distortions etc, Raw file processing is constantly playing a game of catch-up.

We remain of the opinion that Raw file capture isn't worth the effort for the perceived advantages it is supposed to produce. Learning to use your camera properly, and what it is capable of, is far better in the long run. Plus you only need the most basic of software which doesn't have to be constantly updated.