Going back to the past with film digitization

For those of us living in the northern hemisphere, summer - or what passes for it these days, is finally here, and we are busy doing all those jobs that are best undertaken at this time of year.

Although photography is really an all-year-round possibility, there is no doubt that more images tend to be taken during the late spring/summer/early autumn months, and particularly when on holiday. There are some that only take shots in good weather and put their cameras away in the winter, which is a pity, for adverse weather conditions often produce the best and most dramatic images.

Nonetheless there is the general attitude that the winter months are best for doing inside jobs, work that can be undertaken in less than perfect lighting conditions, and this is particularly relevant to those who work during daylight hours and whose only free time is in the dark winter evenings.

Many photographers have traditionally used this time to undertake jobs which can be a bit of a chore sometimes, sorting/cataloguing images, making prints, duplicating/copying images etc. One job that's come to be regarded as quite a chore in these days of digital imaging because of the time it takes, is that of making digital files of past film images, slides and negatives. 

Like countless others we have regularly put this job off, undertaking some digitization of film images and then becoming so weary of the inordinate amount of time it seems to take to do just a small number of shots, the time taken to scan them and then process the results, that after a while the job is returned to that list which we will get around to completing at some time in the future.

However, with the recent failure of our film scanner, with which we could digitize film quicker than many others thanks to the automated batch scanning ability it had, we have be forced to re-consider all our options in respect of film digitization, in other words where do we go from here? 

This is a pertinent question to pose today simply because, as we have discovered, the range of film scanners has shrunk dramatically in the last few years, and of those that now remain few seem worth having, however much they cost. And to add to the problem is the question of suitable software drivers to use with whichever operating system you use, not just at the present time, but well into the future. 

For there seems little point in spending out a considerable sum of money for a dedicated film scanner only to discover a few years down the line that it is obsolete because no drivers for current operating systems are produced. If this happens with a cheap and cheerful flatbed scanner  which can be replaced at minimum cost it's one thing, but quite another if it's at the opposite end of the spectrum.

What's needed is a quick and easy system of film copying/digitization that produces good image quality but is computer operating system independent. And it can be found by going back to using the techniques of the past - and using a camera.

We've been investigating this aspect of film digitization for a while now, even before our film scanner finally ceased working. Re-acquainting ourselves with how we used to undertake the copying of slide/neg film frames in the past using film equipment, and how to do it now using a digital camera instead of a film one to produce digital files. 

Comparing the results with those obtained by conventional scanning has been surprising, and quite revealing. Not only with regard to the quality obtained but also the speed with which it can be undertaken. Almost any digital camera can be used, but a DSLR from about 8mp upwards tends to produce the best overall results. 

As this involves what is usually termed as macro photography, along with some suitable equipment, we are now in the process of writing some pages on both macro photography in general, and film digitization using a digital camera. We hope to be able to release them in the late autumn in time for those long dark winter evenings.

Matching sensor and lens capabilities - a further warning

We have long maintained that as sensor resolutions rise, lens capabilities need to as well, if the benefits of the increased sensor resolution are too be realized. For digicams with their integrated lenses this generally happens automatically as most makers today now try and ensure that lens optical quality is up to the task of delivering the level of light quality needed to the sensor used. However, although this also happens to a certain limited degree with new DSLR's with regard to the basic lenses supplied with kits, it's an area fraught with problems because of the basic understanding that as lenses for DSLR's are interchangeable, any lens that fits the mount can be used, whether it is of recent optical design and production or not.

This has shown itself recently with the new 10/12/14mp sensor cameras where it's becoming clear the current basic lenses produced for use with them just can't deliver the level of overall performance it's been shown that the sensors used need. This has shown itself recently with Sony's new A200/A300/A350/A700 range and the 18-70mm usually bundled with them when sold in kits, and has been reinforced by another recent review of Pentax's new 14.6mp K20D. As one of the new Pentax DA18-55mm mk2 lenses, specifically introduced to cope with the higher resolution and increased chromatic aberrations wasn't available to use with the camera for the test, an earlier Pentax DA18-55mm mk1 was tried instead. This it appeared returned very poor and quite disappointing results, and a better performing lens had to be found, the new Pentax superzoom, the DA18-250mm being substituted. It's also been claimed that Canon's 12mp 450D sensor needs better lenses than even the new EF-S designs specifically introduced to be used with it, the EF-S 18-55mm IS and EF-S 55-250mm IS.

If you take a moment for the implications of this to register, what it broadly means is that when you buy a new high resolution DSLR, (really anything much above the 8mp mark), you must expect to pay out for new, better resolving lenses to go with it. Using any current lenses you have may render the higher level of resolution worthless. In effect the reality is that this drives a coach and horses through the long held belief that older lenses can continue to be used with new DSLR's. It's not that in many cases they can't, just that in doing so you may be compromising the image quality obtained, making the purchase of a new higher resolution DSLR a waste of time and money.

What is perhaps worse is that this extends not just to older film design lenses, but newer one's made in the digital era, as exemplified by the illustrations concerning the Pentax K20D and the Sony DSLR's, the lenses involved both being designed and produced in the last few years. This is an aspect that is a problem right across the board, for even Olympus, who lets not forget started a whole new standard in the 4/3rds system with the belief that digital sensors needed new designs of matching digital specific lenses, have had to introduce new revised and higher resolving lenses with the leaps in sensor resolution to that of the current 10mp level, let alone the higher 12/14mp resolutions that are now appearing from other makers.

We wouldn't claim that this situation is new, for it isn't, most high quality film stock in the past out-resolved most lenses, and to get the best performance the highest quality lenses needed to be used to get the best out of the use of such films. But then the situation was slightly different because you didn't have to specifically invest in a new camera to use high resolving film, the choice of film stock, and the subsequent matching of lenses of suitable quality being one of a mix-and-match approach on the whole.

However, as we are at pains to keep on pointing out, digital is different. Image quality is tied to the purchase of the camera, and the sensor and processing that comes with it, along with the matching of suitable lenses. It is no longer a mix-and-match approach, but rather a coordinated one. Change the camera, and in many cases you have to change the lenses to get any benefit out of changing the camera. One cannot be viewed in isolation from the other.

AA batteries - a flexible friend

The number of cameras using AA size batteries is slowly diminishing in favour of the dedicated camera specific battery pack. There are those that welcome this, feeling that dedicated packs offer longer operating time and more shots per charge. Whilst this is certainly true to a large degree it comes at some cost.

The most obvious casualty is the loss of flexibility, the ability to use long-life once-use batteries like lithiums that can be carried around as insurance until needed thanks to their exceptionally long-life span, (around 10 years), and disposed of once used to exhaustion. Or being able to pick up a set of batteries in an emergency almost anywhere. However perhaps the greatest benefit to arise is the knowledge that because of this flexibility a battery charger doesn't necessarily need to be lugged around on a long trip where luggage size and weight is important.

Cost is another important factor, sets of Lithium AA's, and re-chargeable Ni-Mh's, costing far less that dedicated battery packs. It's true that generic battery packs are available quite cheaply, and in some cases almost as cheap as a set of Ni-Mh AA's, but all too often this is paid for in terms of lower specifications, lower shots per charge and a shorter operating life.

Then of course there is that spectre of the day it is discovered that dedicated battery pack production for your camera has ceased, which then of course makes it instantly obsolete once the current battery pack reaches the end of it's life, which is on average 3 years. No such disaster will befall users of AA battery cameras.

There may be some minor side issues with AA battery use. But lack of flexibility is not one of them, and nor is obsolescence.

Photo Optix chain folds

More sad news on the retail front has emerged in Britain with the news that the Photo Optix chain of shops has closed with most of the staff losing their jobs. Of the 12 stores those in Westminster and Chelsea remain open, having been sold off by the receivers, but it is uncertain at present whether they will continue to trade under the Photo Optix name. This is another worrying nail in the coffin of high street photographic stores which are wilting under the onslaught of the combination of on-line trading and general electrical retailers selling digital cameras.

Although Photo Optix did eventually gain an on-line presence via the acquisition of the digistor.co.uk website it appears that it was really a question of too little too late in the sense that having a website to offer an alternative means for customers to purchase goods is only of benefit if they want to purchase from you rather than someone else. You've got to generate that desire by offering something others don't, either cheaper goods, exclusive products no one else supplies, or a customer service experience that matters.

It seems fairly clear that in the future only a small number of specialist photographic retailers will remain around with physical premises and not just a virtual presence, and whilst there are many that believe that selling price is all that matters, this does end up eventually leading to a reduced choice of goods.

Olympus E420

There have been many that have viewed the Olympus 4/3rds system as one that is fundamentally flawed due to the small size of the sensor. But the latest incarnation of the genre, the E420, shows once again that sensor size and resolution is not the be-all and end-all of digital camera design and performance. Building on the enhanced performance of the recent flagship E3, the new E420 incorporates many of the gains made, and Olympus continue to introduce specifications and options that are genuinely useful to the camera user - not just concentrating on sensor resolution, sensor cleaning and live view are just two that spring to mind, which others then add when they see how beneficial they are. 

There is a new revised sensor with greater dynamic range as well as the SAT DR range optimization, 11 point Contrast detection AF for use with the Live view option, and several other minor little tweaks. Although bigger than the Sigma DP1, coupled with the new Zuiko 25mm lens it makes a wonderfully small package with as wide a specification as any mid-range DSLR, let alone the so called entry-level types, the only thing missing being any form of Image Stabilization. However as reviews are now starting to point out, this is rather over-hyped as far as short focal length lenses go, and those camera bodies that feature built-in anti-shake sensors have to be rather bigger and more bulky that those that use IS lenses. More to the point for most of us Image Stabilization is something, like live view, that we have managed without so far, and whilst handy to have under certain conditions, isn't something that you can't live without.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect is the image quality now delivered, which rivals most others and is in some cases even better. If you want DSLR performance in as small a package as possible, then the combination of the E420 + 25mm Zuiko 'pancake' lens is definitely the one to have, for nothing is lost, no specifications save IS being given up in exchange for the small size, indeed Olympus are to be applauded for adding specs rather than removing them as others are doing, particularly Nikon and Sony, in order to keep costs down. 

Indeed the E420+25mm in size, specs, performance, and cost, makes the recent Sigma DP1, which many got very over-excited about, seem hardly worth considering on any count.

Fuji S100fs - 11mp bridge type digicam

In response to those who have written-off the 'bridge' type prosumer digicams that have many DSLR features wrapped up in a digicam body Fuji have produced the S100fs. As basically a revised and improved version of the 9mp S9500 of 2005, the camera has a larger 2/3" super CCD HR sensor and a longer range 28-400mm (equiv) lens. It also pushes the frontiers of ISO levels a bit further, now reaching ISO6400 and ISO10000 at reduced capture rates. Whether these are a few steps too far is open to question, for decent ISO performance at the more 'normal' rates above ISO 400, ISO800/1600, would be quite sufficient for a digicam, and worth having.

In actual fact the camera seems to perform quite well all the way up to ISO3200 when compared to a DSLR such as Nikon's 10mp D60, not being that much worse, and thus the best that has been seen from a digicam to date. The downside however is that although there are many great features to the camera, it can shoot Raw if required, and has Fuji's Dynamic range option the same as the S5 pro, the end result is images that are sharp and full of detail, but marred but high levels of CA at almost every turn, and visible in even small prints. This would appear to be down to the lens, the boundaries of which have just been pushed too far optically in respect to the sensor resolution, and it's a shame that Fuji haven't followed the lead of Nikon and introduced CA removal into the camera, as Nikon have with regard to their D3/D300 DSLR's.

Design-wise there is an awful lot to like about the S100fs, not least the degree to which features can be accessed without having to dive into the camera menu system, as happens with far too many entry-level DSLR's, but regrettably battery life isn't great at around 250 shots, down from that of the S9500 despite the use of a dedicated lithium-ion type rather than Ni-Mh AA's, which in itself is a retrograde step, AA's being a more flexible option. 

The tilting rear LCD screen and flexible lens range add to the appeal of the camera, as does two modes of image stabilization, but at the end of the day a 'proper' DSLR, even a basic entry-level one, just seems to have the edge with respect to more flexibility in use over the longer term. But it's a close call.

Olympus E520

As with the E410 Olympus have produced an upgraded version of the E510 in the shape of the E520. The range of improvements appears to mirror that of the E420 over the E410, slightly larger LCD, Contrast Detection AF in live view mode, Face detection, quicker 3.5fps, and a new IS mode. A welcome if fairly modest revision that once again illustrates that the basics of digital camera specifications and performance have now been established, and changes that are made are down to minor revisions aimed at getting the most out of the specs currently offered.

Samsung 14.6mp GX20 DSLR - and no GX200

Samsung's version of the Pentax K20D has finally started to make an appearance, and as with the GX10/K10D there are some minor but important differences between them. The camera menu system seems to be preferable, rather better designed, clearer and simpler, and as before just Adobe's DNG Raw file format is offered alongside Jpeg. Overall image performance appears similar, but the extended dynamic range function is missing which is a pity, as with the K20D it provides around 1 stop extra in DR range, and mostly gained at the highlight end where it matters most. Otherwise the DR range is roughly the same as the K10D/GX10, and not 1 stop more as was originally claimed.

The GX20 is being rated as a better buy than the K20D because it's around £100 cheaper at £699 at present, although neither camera is being seen in the same light as the K10D/GX10. At around the £500 price point, and despite their rather poor Jpeg performance, they were seen as a good buy, providing a decent specification at a value-for-money price, which offset the very average overall performance and less than brilliant control layout design.

The new arrivals are not being viewed in the same way as a result of the much higher prices that are now being asked for cameras that, apart from the sensor resolution increase, haven't really improved in other areas such as AF, metering, or control layout. Jpeg performance, whilst being better, still seems lacking, the live-view mode is seen as something that's not really worth using, far too limited, and the previously much vaunted build quality is now being viewed for what it actually is, better than that of some basic entry level DSLR's, but not a match for that of the magnesium bodied semi-pro DSLR's such as Canon's 40D or Nikon's D300. 

All that has really happened is that the image quality now comes closer to other similar DSLR's, and as such there are predictions that the street prices of both cameras will fall further in the coming months, as they are basically over-priced in comparison to others of similar spec/quality such as Canon's 450D and Sony's A350, which sell at around the £550 mark at present  - and even their prices are falling.

Samsung have stated that they won't be producing a GX200 clone of the K200D. Whether this means that the GX10 will remain available instead isn't clear, but Samsung have also made it apparent that they aren't really interested in producing basic entry level cameras, but in making semi-pro and pro level equipment, harbouring it would appear the same ambitions that Hoya have with regard to Pentax, to fill the void left by the disappearance of Contax as a professionally regarded brand.

Both have a considerable way to go before ambitions such as this could really be taken seriously. They may believe it, but it is others they have to convince, not in words, but in equipment that is purchased through choice as being the best available, and not just the best value-for-money, so though the design and performance of the new Samsung CMOS sensor in the GX20/K20D is a start, that's all it is, a beginning.

Back to the future - Canon style - with the 1000D

When Canon first revealed details of the new 450D, and then it's predicted selling price, there was a view that this couldn't surely be correct, that a camera of this price and specification was rather more than base entry level. The remarks Canon then made to the effect that it would slot in-between the 40D and 400D, which would continue as the cheapest available Canon DSLR, didn't seem to answer all the questions that had been raised, and a belief arose that Canon would add another DSLR to their range, and at the same time create a new entry level tier, by replacing the 400D with a revised model. We commented back in March/April that Canon has in the past had six film SLR tiers, and that producing six DSLR tiers was therefore a distinct possibility.  

This has now proved correct with the official release of details of the new Canon 1000D, similar in design to the 450D, using the same battery and grip, complete with live-view, but with a specification otherwise similar to the 400D, and using a 10mp sensor. With a predicted price of around £499, whilst it might be quite good value for money for the specification, the last few 400D's, now being sold off cheaply at around £150 less may prove a better bargain if you aren't bothered by live-view or have any investment in Compactflash memory cards.

Producing a reduced spec version of the 450D, basically a refreshed 400D with live-view, would seem to be Canon's answer to the other budget level DSLR's such as Nikon's D60 and Sony's A200 because like it or not, for many price is as much of an issue as sensor resolution when it comes to purchasing a camera, and is why in the early months of 2008, end-of-line and discounted DSLR's being sold of at what many would see as bargain prices, Nikon D40/40x's, Pentax K100D's, and Canon 400D's, out-sold others by a wide margin. 

There was some surprise at this in certain quarters, but we can't understand why, for it underscores that buyers aren't always as daft as some marketing departments believe. If just a few months back a camera now being sold of cheaply was being marketed as being the one to have then what's changed in the meantime? It might be argued that camera standards have risen since, but this is often by miniscule amounts, real nip and tuck stuff, whilst the camera's own standards won't have dropped, so the actual differences might be very minor indeed. 

As it could be argued that the basic standards surrounding digital cameras have to a large extent reached a plateau, the big advances now being in the past, new digital camera introductions in the future will be targeted at making the best out of what already exists, or tailoring particular camera tiers more closely to the target market sector. In the past Canon have been very good at this, and no doubt will be in the future. A new entry level tier could be the start.

Sony 10mp A300

There has been the general view expressed that Sony's A300 might turn out to offer the best overall value of it's current DSLR line-up. The 10mp sensor giving lower noise levels that the 14.2mp A350, but with the added bonus of live-view over the 10mp A200. Sadly the situation seems to be that there is little if any image quality differences seen between the three DSLR's, the A200, A300, and A350 as far as noise levels or the amount of recorded detail emerging, just that the 14.2mp's of the A350's sensor gives a larger file size, and thus a slightly larger reproduction at the same dpi. 

Some of the problem stems, we have read in reviews, of the continuing use of the 18-70mm lens provided with these cameras, which just can't deliver the performance the sensors need, whether 10mp or 14.2mp is involved. Perhaps it is time camera makers finally came to their senses, and realized that continually upping sensor count without also raising other aspects to the same level of performance, can't carry on. 

However it would also appear that somehow today's CMOS sensor technology just produces better overall image quality than CCD sensors, and that nothing that happens with regard to CCD sensor cameras and their processing is going to alter that. So the current situation would thus now appear to be one where buying a CCD sensor DSLR is akin to handicapping yourself as far as image quality goes in comparison to CMOS sensor DSLR's, whatever the make, for there seems little doubt that the Canon, Nikon and Pentax CMOS sensor DSLR cameras, whatever your opinion might be on their image quality performance, are still rather better than the CCD types.

Unfortunately, with just a few exceptions, in the majority of cases these are also the more costly alternatives when it comes to DSLR choices.

Sigma 14mp DP1 - a nice try but........

We don't know if we're imaging it or not, but all we seem to find with camera reviews these days is the general view that the camera is okay, but...., with the review then pointing out all the niggles and faults that it has, and then finishing by giving the opinion that the camera is still "one to consider". After a couple of reviews this is the general impression we have gained with regard to Sigma's DP1. That if you want a camera of this particular type with regard to design and size, then it's not bad. But if you want the best performing camera then you should consider looking elsewhere and modify your requirements accordingly.

Personally we think the DP1's been rather overrated right from the day it was announced, that somehow using a larger sensor size in a smaller camera was suddenly going to change image quality overnight. Why this belief arose we aren't sure, because commonsense would indicate that Sigma would be using the same basic technology in the camera that was in their DSLR's. For if a better level of performance emerged then the question would inevitably be asked, why isn't this used in the SD14?

It would appear that some small improvements have been found, and these will also be incorporated into the SD14/SD15, but it isn't anything earth shattering, and the same basic camera performance as those cameras provide, is what results. Fairly decent but decidedly average image quality, and comparable to 'normal' Bayer sensor design cameras of around the 8mp level, but as with the SD14, not at the level of Bayer sensor DSLR's with 12/14mp sensor counts, despite being a 14mp sensor camera. 

It's in the taken-for-granted aspects where the camera really falls down though, a slow F4 lens, (for a fixed focal length wide angle design), poor AF that just gives up in less than ideal light levels, and image quality that does the same. Great at ISO100 in comparison to other digicams, but decidedly below par otherwise. And just where a design of this type was supposed to score over conventional small sensor digicams, at high ISO in poor light. One review has even stated that ordinary digicams were better in comparison, especially since it appears that the speed of operation makes other digicams seem very quick. Go away and having a cup of tea in between taking shots is one comment we've seen. Oh dear.

A unique camera at the moment simply because of it's sensor and basic design philosophy, it's not at all unique in other respects it would thus appear, and is therefore as a result, extremely expensive for what it is as far as we can see. A nice try but......, really sums it up.

Pentax/Samsung to produce full frame DSLR? 

A interesting comment coupled with a bit of news would seem to indicate that in the light of the current full frame DSLR situation, Nikon having finally introduced one in the shape of the 12mp D3, and Sony probably doing so by the end of the year, that Pentax/Samsung might be intending to produce one as well in the near future.

This conjecture follows comments by Pentax officials that there was room at the top of the Pentax DSLR range for another model, along with a report published in Japan that Pentax would be concentrating for the moment on 135 and APS DSLR's, and that the 645 medium format project was shelved for the time being. Considering the current Pentax DSLR lineup consists of the entry level K200D and semi-pro K20D, what could Pentax possibly put above the 14.6mp K20D? A full frame model seems a logical conclusion, especially considering the reference to 135, which is of course 35mm. We don't expect an early statement to confirm or deny this, but all might be revealed later on in the year, perhaps in the summer or early autumn. This would be quite an about-turn for Pentax, having abandoned a FF DSLR some years back before  introducing their first DSLR and committing themselves to APS-C sensor cameras. 

The one slight problem they have is that nearly all their current lens line-up is for APS-C DSLR's. They ceased virtually all FF lens types when they abandoned film camera production, and just make a small number of prime types now, a couple of macro's and the 'limiteds'. Or maybe it isn't a problem. Perhaps they intend to produce a new range of lenses specially designed to not only suit the sensor format, but high resolution FF sensors. As Canon have 12.8mp and 21mp FF DSLR's, Sony have announced a 24mp one for the future, and Nikon are rumored to be considering the introduction of a D3x with high resolution sensor, (24mp perhaps?), the notion that a Pentax/Samsung FF DSLR will be around the 20mp range seems sensible. With the K20D already at 14.6mp you can bet it won't be any less.

It might be that to ensure good image quality the camera won't be compatible with past 35mm FF or 645 lens types, and will use the new SDM standard AF system alone. This is only speculation of course, but might be a sensible move to make to prevent complaints of less than wonderful image quality, when past FF lens types that just can't provide the sensor with the light quality required are used, and the camera rather than the lens are help to fault.

Nikon D700 full frame DSLR

On the 1st July and ending weeks of rumours and endless 'leaks' Nikon finally released details of a new lower priced FF DSLR to add to it's line-up. Despite it's only other FF DSLR being named the D3 the newcomer has received the title of D700. This may be because it's been designed to be not only cheaper than the D3, but smaller and lighter as well. To all intents and purposes it's being seen by many as either a full frame version of the D300, or a D3 in a D300 body, which are really one and the same thing.

It gains a few specs over the D3, built-in-flash and sensor cleaning, and loses a few others, lower fps etc, and is regarded as Nikon's answer to Canon's 5D. But don't get too carried away with the 'cheaper' price tag. At $2,999/€2,599 it's still dearer than the current D300 and 5D, a new version of which - with higher specifications - is expected any time soon.

Anybody thinking that this virtually means the end of the small sensor DSLR's should think again. It will be around four times the price of the cheapest APS-C DSLR but closer in price to the 5D, which is Canon's best selling FF DSLR by some margin. Who says price doesn't matter when it comes to buying a DSLR?

Where's the Nikon D80 replacement?

Now that it is known that the new DSLR announcement concerns the D700 the question that is being asked is, where is the replacement for the D80, a rival to Canon's 450D and Sony's A350, and to a certain extent Pentax's K20D? There is currently a big hole opening up in Nikon's small sensor line-up between the entry level offering, the D60, and the D300, in terms of price as well as specification. The current D80 just doesn't really cut it on the spec level any longer, no matter how good the image quality, lacking sensor cleaning and live view, and in some respects it seems strange that the D700 has been introduced first. Perhaps Nikon needed to get it out before Canon's updated 5D whereas the other rivals to a replaced D80 are already available.