|
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.
|