This page contains a selection of comments on a number of various subjects that we consider are of interest and importance to digital camera users but that don't really warrant an individual web page to themselves. To save you scrolling down to find the one that you want they are all listed here as bookmark links.

Windows XP   still safer and better than to use than Vista?

Full Frame  is the term outdated and irrelevant now?

Varifocal    Why some lenses aren't all they seem.

Viewfinders & Live View    getting a bit silly?

Alternatives to Live View   some things to consider

Role Reversal   are some digicams better than DSLR's?

35mm Full Frame DSLR's  are they really worth the cost?

Windows XP - still safer and better to use than Vista?

Digital photography is all about computing, and whilst there are some that think that computers should play no part in the process from taking a shot to printing it out, most realize that a computer is a basic and integral part of getting the most out of the medium.

Having actually used computer technology in photography professionally since the early 1970's we personally have no qualms about it, indeed it has enabled a huge number of photographers to take more control over their image taking and subsequent processing and printing than has ever been the case before. You don't need a messy and expensive darkroom, which few can afford, even less have the space for, or the time to use. However it's not all plain sailing, and from time to time, as with any technology at any level, the odd problem crops up. As it's reliant on general computing, changes that occur can also have side affects that can be disproportionate to the benefits they are supposed to bring. The release of the Windows Vista operating system is one such occurrence. 

The problem with the release of new software is that it can often turn out not to be backwards compatible with current hardware or software, and the Microsoft Windows Vista O/s has turned out to be a prime example of this, so much so that our regular computer magazine, one of the oldest in circulation having just celebrated it's 30th anniversary, has always been rather wary of recommending it, which is in stark contrast to previous Windows O/s releases.

With a recent issue it has however gone one step further than ever before, saying that sticking with XP is to be preferred because Vista has just too many issues to make using it worthwhile. Concerted attempts to persuade Microsoft not to cease production of XP have been made since Vista arrived which in itself is quite unprecedented, as past O/s usually cease as soon as new versions arrive, and Vista finally turned up in early 2007 after some delays along the way. 

The problems with Vista are several. Not only does it need vastly more in the way of RAM memory just to work, it's slower at doing so than XP. Perhaps even worse than this however is that it just won't work with vast amounts of current hardware and software, Vista compatible drivers just aren't being produced. And even where they are appearing the items in question just don't run as well under it as they do under XP. So serious has this situation become that many firms are steadfastly refusing to adopt Vista, (they are always behind consumers in this respect but this is something totally new), and are looking at alternatives such as open source O/s such as Linux etc. 

As another service pack for XP - SP3 - has just been produced, (full support for it will continue to 2014), and critical updates until 2019, our magazine suggests that anybody who can should go out now and purchase a new copy of XP professional. As a guard against the time when a new PC is needed, and it can be loaded instead of whatever is provided with the machine, by which they mean some version of Vista. This may be considered a rather extreme view to take, but serves to illustrate the resistance to Vista that exists even within the IT media industry, because of the issues that exist with it that Microsoft is either unwilling or unable to rectify.

We wouldn't ourselves do this, as all our current computers have their O/s backed up, and we can re-install or move the current XP installations to other computers if needed. But we certainly wouldn't entertain at all any though of moving to Vista, and would suggest that if your in the market for a new computer, and you have existing software and hardware that you use with it, you think very carefully about the position. We know that several items we have just wouldn't run under Vista, there are no drivers, but the other inescapable fact is that our laptops probably run faster and better under XP than they would under Vista, even if upgrading them was feasible.

Indeed several computer makers such as Sony are providing XP drivers to purchasers of their Vista enabled machines, so that users who have complained about the appalling performance they provide -  in record numbers - can 'upgrade' them to XP to improve the situation. 

The arrival of 'Netbooks' has really sounded the death knell for Vista, because Vista just won't run on most because of it's huge hardware requirements, and Microsoft have been forced to continue supplying XP, so as not to loose even more ground to Linux, which now come installed with many. 

Windows 7, the next generation of Windows is being released by Microsoft in late 2009 early 2010.. Although it's still based on the basic Vista code they are trying to introduce it as soon as possible because it's being designed to run faster whilst needing less hardware requirements but be backwards compatible with Vista so they don't suffer the massive resistance to it that has arisen with Vista.

In this way Microsoft hope that both XP and Vista can be withdrawn since Windows 7 should run on all types of computers using less Ram memory, even Netbooks, because currently most computer makers have been forced to install large amounts of Ram memory - 3-4Gb - to persuade consumers to purchase computers running Vista.

Full frame - is the term outdated and irrelevant now?

With the recent introduction of another full frame DSLR, Nikon's D3, and the prospect of more arriving from Sony/Pentax/Samsung at some future date, the number of DSLR's using full frame sensors is slowly but surely growing, and there are those that think that one day, at some point in the distant future they may well become quite normal and widespread in availability and general use. We will reserve judgment on that aspect, and instead consider what the term full frame actually means. Many people involved in photography would have little doubt we think, and say it refers to a DSLR that is fitted with a sensor that is roughly the same size as a 35mm film frame, 36 x 24mm. But there are those that question this classification, believing the designation is being wrongly used.

The term full frame has actually been in existence for a lot longer than DSLR's, and has been used in the past, as it is now, to distinguish between different types of camera and the film/sensor size format used. It's use first arose in the 1970's when 'half-frame' cameras, using standard 35mm film to produce 18 x 24mm negatives, i.e. half the normal 35mm film frame size, came into being. These were produced by both Olympus and Canon in an attempt to reduce camera size, aided by the huge improvements being made in film emulsions at the time, and the higher and higher quality images that 35mm was thus returning. It was a quirky little format in some respects. Taking shots involved using a camera in the opposite orientation to that normally used. To take a landscape shot a camera was held in the portrait position, and for a portrait shot in the landscape. At one time it was given serious consideration by many camera makers, and the term 'full frame' arose to distinguish  those cameras that continued to use the whole of the 35mm film frame from those that used half. 'Half Frame' of course being the designation they were given.

When Digital SLR's based around 35mm film SLR's first arrived in photography circles they all used sensors smaller than that of a 35mm film frame, around half the size, the same as the half frame cameras of old. This was mostly but not entirely to do with sensor cost, the sensors being an expensive part of the camera, and remaining so to this day. Because of this the convention arose once again of referring to cameras that used sensors the same size as a 35mm film frame as 'full frame' to distinguish them from those that didn't.

Today many, not being aware of the way the term originated, believe the term 'full frame' applies to any camera where the lens image circle made by the lens used matches that of the sensor size, (Please see  Digital Camera Lenses  for more details), and is thus being used incorrectly when referring to 35mm sized sensors, and causing confusion. This is quite wrong, as we hope the history of the term illustrates. 

Why and how this confusion has arisen is quite easy to see. The problem lies in the lack of awareness about the half frame cameras and what they were. All they did was use standard 35mm film. They weren't SLR's that used standard 35mm SLR lenses giving a cropped image output as many DSLR's do today, but proper cameras in there own right with lenses that matched the 18 x 24mm format, just as today the 4/3rds system and indeed almost any camera made uses lenses made to match the image format. 

The introduction of DSLR's using a smaller image format but used with existing lenses for a larger one is the first case as far as we are aware of large scale mis-matching of lenses and film/sensor formats. (there has always been a small amount of this going on, e.g. the use, with adapters, of medium format lenses on 35mm SLR's, but it's use has never been widespread). And this is where the confusion arises, because for many the assumption has been that 'full frame' refers to the situation where the correct matching of lens and image format occurs. It doesn't.

So the term 'full frame' is not outdated nor incorrect, and is as relevant today as it has always been. And it means just what it historically always has, the 35mm 36 x 24mm format, and nothing else.

Varifocal - why some lenses aren't all they seem. 

There are growing numbers of DSLR users who are puzzled by the performance of some lenses they use on their cameras under certain circumstances, in other words the scale of magnification, or size of the subject they are trying to capture, in comparison to others set to the same focal length. We have commented on this particular aspect before in an article titled, "Super zooms - not all they seem", but the fact is that the phenomenon that is encountered is not just restricted to these types but can be found with any lens of a particular design construction. This is called Varifocal. 

All lenses are classified according to their focal length, or focal range if they are zooms. These figures apply to when the lens is focused to infinity. For many lenses these figures remain constant from infinity down to the minimum focusing distance that the lens can be set to. But there are a growing number where this is not the case, and these figures alter according to the focused distance. As it gets less, so the figures reduce. It is an aspect that concerns lenses that can focus closer than is normal for the focal length, and usually where internal focusing is also used. It's a new optical method of producing larger magnification by reducing the focal length at the minimum focus distance.

To give an example using the superzoom type, say a 18-200mm, at infinity the focal range will be 18-200mm. But at the minimum focus distance (MFD), which is often around 45cm and much less than is normal for the 200mm focal length, the average of which is 1.2m (120cm), the focal range is usually found to be about 18-125mm at most. Whilst the shortest focal length remains constant, the longest reduces on a sliding scale in line with the focused distance.

This Varifocal design is not restricted to zoom lenses but is used in prime/monofocal lenses as well. The latest designs of 1:1 macro lenses often use this method now. A 400mm lens that can focus as close as 1.5m will probably be found to be no more that around the 275-300mm mark at this distance. Whether this lens design aspect is important to you very much depends on what you require from a lens, and the particular lens type involved. 

The 18-200mm lens can be useful and versatile to many, but is often hampered by a slow maximum aperture at the 200mm setting. This is usually accepted as the trade off for the wide focal range and close focusing abilities. But if you never use the telephoto setting at infinity, but usually at closer quarters, then the focal range is wasted, and a shorter focal range lens with faster apertures, especially at the longer end, may prove a better option.

We would much rather have say a 18-70mm or 16-80mm with fast apertures than a 18-125/200/300mm with much slower ones that only gave the same focal range at the closer distances normally used.

Viewfinder's and Live View

The first digital cameras all had optical viewfinders whether they were digicam or DSLR. The viewfinders of SLR/DSLR's have historically been better to use simply because they give you a optical view through the lens [TTL]. Digicams of course don't, like film compact cameras, and the problems of using their optical finders begin to show up when taking close up shots where parallax errors occur and the image doesn't match what is seen through the viewfinder. As a result most digicams automatically switch on their rear LCD screens when macro mode is chosen.

Because the digicam LCD's get their image straight from the sensor, which of course it got through the lens, you get in fact TTL viewing, just as with a DSLR - well nearly. The problems aren't one's of disparate viewing angles anymore, but rather actually seeing the screen in bright light, and the image resolution, which is not as high as that of the human eye. That resolution you still get only when you look through an optical finder in a DSLR.

To try and get over the problem of seeing the LCD screen in bright light EVF finders arrived, miniature LCD screens used instead of the optical finders. And as another problem is solved so more raise their heads. Once again the resolution of the EVF's is not as good as the naked eye, and in addition they use quite a bit of power.

So to get over the power consumption problems many makers have done away with viewfinders altogether leaving just the rear LCD's, which they have made bigger and bigger, on the grounds you can't have too much of a good thing. 1.8" screens have given way to 2", then 2.5", and now 3" are arriving. Except you still can't see them in bright light.........and all the buttons are in funny places because there's so little room on the camera on account of the size of the screen........and the screen has to be on all the time....and the colours aren't always accurate..... and the resolutions are still quite low.

Mind you some of these screens are really useful - when you can see them of course. They flip this way and that so you don't have to bend down and twist around to look through a viewfinder. Makes everyone using a DSLR just a little bit jealous. But DSLR owners don't have to be jealous any longer. 

Can't be bothered to bend down to look through the viewfinder of that expensive DSLR you bought? Don't worry, now you don't have to. You know that high resolution image you get when you look through a DSLR's viewfinder. The one that doesn't need any power to use. Well you can replace it with  DSLR Live View  which displays the image on the rear LCD screen like a digicam, although it's not always the same method used.

All you've got to do is to remember is to keep the battery charged up........and not use it in bright light......and not worry about the colour accuracy ......or the low resolution. Next thing you know DSLR makers will be doing away with the optical finders and calling the cameras, err... digicams?

Is it us, or is this all getting just a little bit silly? 

Alternatives to DSLR Live View

If you feel that you just can't do without the new live view specification there are a couple of alternatives that perhaps you should consider before you purchase a new DSLR that features it, if you already have one that in most other respects is quite alright.

The first is to obtain one of the Zigview accessory viewfinders that slip onto the camera viewfinder and perform in much the same way as the Olympus live view 'A' mode and the Sony 'quick AF live view ', using a secondary sensor to capture the image produced by the penta-prism/penta-mirror and seen in the camera's viewfinder, sending it to a LCD screen for viewing. Although not exactly cheap they are still rather less costly than buying another DSLR, but of course suffer all the downsides that live view brings anyway, low resolution view etc. They also need separate battery power. One small advantage is that the screens are vari-angle and away from the camera back.

Another better and cheaper alternative is to consider a right-angle finder, a SLR accessory that has existed for many years, uses optical view, and needs no power to work. We provide full details of the one we use which can be found here  Seagull Right Angle Finder

Role reversal - are some digicams better than DSLR's?

We are beginning to wonder if buying a budget DSLR in preference to one of the top prosumer digicam's, all of which offer comparable features and often more at a cheaper price, is currently worthwhile. The main reasons given for choosing a DSLR over a digicam is better image quality, more versatility, and quicker response. But if you look at a lot of the current DSLR's you find these advantages are not as great as they should be, or only available at greatly increased cost

Take lenses for example. The whole idea of a using DSLR is supposed to be that you gain access to a wide range of lenses and accessories that you can use, and compared to compact cameras the lens quality is far superior giving better quality images. But this is not really the case when you start to compare the quality that is obtainable using the basic lenses provided with most DSLR's these days. The 18-50/18-55mm is now the standard zoom range provided. That's fair enough as it gives roughly 35mm equivalents of about 28-80mm. But the optical quality they generally seem to have is not nearly as good as they should be to warrant the investment in a DSLR, and doesn't enable the user to get the best image quality out of the sensor the DSLR has. Yes, you can buy better lenses, and then the image quality is much better than that obtained with a digicam. But this should not be necessary, the basic lens should enable the DSLR to give better image quality than that from a digicam. Regrettably, in too many cases they don't. You don't go and buy a digicam and then look for a better lens to use with it to get acceptable image quality. You can't of course, but then you don't expect to need to. The lens provided should give all the quality you need because it's been optimized to work with the sensor used in the camera. And that's the current problem with the present DSLR's. Very few, even in a single makers lineup, use the same sensor or type of sensor, so a lens that works well with one sensor doesn't always give the same performance with another.

Image quality from some DSLR's is often better in that higher iso's are used with less visible noise, but this is not surprisingly, always the case. Many of the newer DSLR's now have iso's that start at ISO100. Let's not forget the lowest iso is usually where the best image quality will be found. So these camera's will not be so good at performance at higher iso's in low light. And despite all the advances that have taken place over the years the truth remains that good image quality using a reasonable shutter speed in average light conditions is only obtained either by using a 'fast' lens, or a high iso.

As far as increased versatility goes, it's certainly available, but only really happens if you buy additional lenses and other accessories such as flash guns etc, at great cost. By contrast most digicams have quite good macro modes, and some have zoom lenses that cover virtually all the focal lengths you are ever likely to need, some even using optical image stabilizing, and all built in.

Another problem with many base DSLR's is the way that most changes to their photographic features, iso, white balance, metering, AF drive mode, etc, have to be accessed through their rear screen menu's, digicam style. Where's the advantage in that? By contrast, many of the top prosumer digicam's are having buttons placed on the body so that just these features can be altered without the need to dive into the rear screen, in an effort to copy the top DSLR's. 

It seems a real case of role reversal, and certainly puts a question mark over the supposed advantages of a DSLR with regard to the cheaper base models.  Unless you shoot a lot of really fast action shots the fact that a DSLR responds quicker is often not that important. For four years we used digicam's all around the world and don't remember actually missing an important shot because of it. 

Of course using a digicam alters the way you approach a shot, just as using a Manual Focus camera instead of a Auto Focus one, or using medium format as opposed to 35mm does. But then when we first trained in photography in the mid sixties some of the most important lessons we learned were that taking a shot is 95% thought and 5% action, and that one well taken shot is worth a dozen poor one's. If you are taking still life of some kind - and a lot of ordinary shots usually come under that category one way or another - then speed is not of the essence. Another lesson we learnt is that taking a good image is not conditional on the equipment you have, although it can help, it's what you do with it that really counts. The key to taking good photographs is understanding the camera you have and what it can do, and thus, what you can do with it.

So don't dismiss digicams as only for those who can't afford a DSLR or who don't know any better. In many cases the best digicams are not a DSLR's poorer cousin but a better option. 

35mm sized 'full frame' DSLR's - are they really worth the cost?

It could be said that the present Holy Grail of many digital camera users is ownership of a 'full frame' digital SLR. By this we mean a camera with a 35mm sized sensor useable with current and past 35mm lenses without suffering the field of view changes bought about by smaller sensors. But are these cameras all they seem? We have always had our doubts about the supposed merits of such cameras, in spite of their cost, which some see as a sign of their superiority. Recently we have been re-reading past reviews and more recent comments concerning Canon's full frame 5D, the cheapest full frame DSLR currently available, and comparing it to Nikon's recent D3, which appear to reinforce our views. That using full frame 35mm sensors coupled with current 35mm lenses is not always a good combination, even when those lenses are the new 'digitally optimized' designs.

We have had our reservations about full frame cameras ever since Pentax, who originally intended to market a full frame sensor DSLR, and were the first to consider doing so, abandoned the project stating that they could get equal image quality using smaller sensors. Both Contax and Kodak went on to produced expensive full frame cameras, none of which were able to deliver the kind of image quality expected of them, and both have ceased production of DSLR's and left the market. This is something important to take note of as Kodak were the first to produce DSLR's of any kind, long before anyone else, in both Canon and Nikon SLR mounts, and most professional photographers used them.

The reviews of the Canon 12.8mp 5D stated that the resolution of the camera is high, and noise levels low. Which is what you would expect. Anything less would leave big questions. However one review went on to say that while Canon stated, when it released it's first full frame DSLR, the 1Ds, that all 35mm EF lenses would be compatible, that has turned out to be mainly in terms of functional compatibility, and that optically it has been a different story with a number of lenses. The main concerns being back focus problems, the negative influence of image stabilization, strong loss of image resolution from centre to corner, a large increase in corner shading [vignetting], soft images at open aperture with fast lenses, and more visible chromatic aberration. It has transpired that each and every lens reacts differently, some delivering adequate and worthwhile image quality, others however being sadly lacking in this respect. And the only way to discover this is to try each and every lens on the camera. More recent reviews of the higher count 16.7/21mp 1Ds2/3's have revealed that use of the expensive 'L' series Canon EF lenses is almost mandatory to stand any chance of getting the image quality out of the cameras that the sensor is capable of producing, and that often these are barely adequate.

It would also appear that the 24-105 F4L IS lens introduced to partner the 5D seems to have been optimized for resolution. This in itself is not surprising. High count sensors require much higher resolving lenses than those associated with film. However it seems that distortion remains at previous 35mm film standard levels and had not been improved upon, with fairly strong barrel distortion at 24mm and visible pincushion at 50mm and 105mm. Corner shading - vignetting - is high at 24mm and moderate at longer focal lengths. Whether these effects are any worse than those that existed previously with film we cannot say, the reviews seemed to suggest not, just that it's not any better. So what's the problem?

Well, we've come to expect better, thanks to the use of 35mm lenses combined with smaller sensors. There might be that annoying field of view cropping that occurs, which is a distinct disadvantage for wide angle views, but a boon for those using telephoto's. The big advantage however is in overall image quality. Corner shading, along with barrel and pincushion, are greatly reduced and in many cases eliminated altogether.

Our view is that these problems restrict the use of any full frame DSLR for those who engage in landscape and architectural photography, most particularly with regard to wide angle views. The point is that this is supposed to be one of the main beneficiaries of using a full format sensor. While of course the cost benefits of using the smaller APS-C sensored cameras for those engaged in telephoto work is well established. Smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses can be used.

However, these advantages remain even when the new dedicated digital lenses designed for use on APS-C DSLR's are used. This has been emphasized recently with Nikon's release of the D3. Firstly they have introduced CA removal processing to counter this effect, and added 'vignetting' control via a firmware update to offset the noticeable corner shading that users of the D3 have encountered.

Although new dedicated APS-C design lenses  made to match the sensor format are now well established and widespread in use they still in the main have an advantage over 35mm lenses used on full frame sensor cameras. And this is because that in the vast majority of cases their sensor format covering circles are still larger in relation to the sensor, than that of the 35mm lens and full frame sensor, and distortions and corner shading are still of a much lower order where they still exist. Indeed it has been revealed that many dedicated APS-C format lenses can still cover a 35mm size image frame should the need arise.

So it's really a case of remembering that well known saying -  All that glitters is not always gold.