« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »
October 27, 2006
[ REVIEW—PANASONIC DMC–FZ50 camera ]
Price: $1000
Recommended
The low-down: The Panasonic DMC-FZ50 is a 10 megapixel super-zoom camera with a 35–420mm (film equivalent) Leica lens.
The camera looks best in its black finish – the grey body looks plasticky. Construction quality is good and controls are intuitive. The camera is bulkier than the Canon S3IS and the Sony H2/5. The extra body volume is the price paid for the Leica zoom.
The lens is outstanding, not just for its optical qualities but also for its mechanics. The zoom is manually controlled from a ring around the lens, exactly as the god of cameras intended. It is smooth, fast and infinitely progressive, unlike the electro-mechanical zooms on most cameras of this type. The zoom/focus mechanism works entirely inside the lens barrel so the lens does not extend or retract. Superb!
Panasonic cameras have had a poor reputation for controlling picture noise but the FZ50 breaks the curse. There is no noise apparent up to ISO400, acceptable noise at 800 and remarkably useable images at 1600. Combined with good exposure, dynamic range, white balance and excellent detail this makes for good output.
Like: The external flash shoe is a useful feature and the swing-out rotating LCD screen is excellent. And that is just as well.
Dislike: The electronic viewfinder is pretty dire. Fortunately the LCD viewer is manoeuvrable and of high enough resolution and brightness to serve as a viewfinder most of the time. It doesn’t have as many swings and tilts as the Canon S3IS but it is still useful.
Verdict: The Panasonic is a difficult camera to rate. The lens and image processing are so good and the image stabilisation so effective that you want to love it. And for static images it is hard to beat. For a tourist this could be the ideal camera. But for taking pictures of moving subjects it is simply too slow in its responses. You are almost always a beat behind the action. The FZ50 is perfect for Venice but a letdown at the school sports day.
Posted by terry at 07:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 19, 2006
[ REVIEW—KODAK P712 digital camera ]
Price: $700
Average
The low-down: The Kodak P712 is a 7 megapixel all-in-one camera with a 12x zoom (36–432mm film equivalent) Schneider lens and electronic viewfinder. It has effective image stabilisation.
Construction is of attractive smoothly moulded plastic and the camera is small. It looks like this is a camera made for women which is in line with the company’s boast that women prefer Kodak over all other brands.
Kodak cameras always have high colour saturation and this one is no exception. It is far too high. We had to turn the Colour Mode to Low to stop solid colours bleeding.
Image noise at ISO400 was so noticeable that we were forced to limit ourselves to ISO100 which is absurd in this day and age.
Like: It looks nice and the image stabilisation works well. Under ideal conditions -- that is, with a static subject in low contrast lighting and with the in-camera saturation turned right down and with the zoom at the half way mark -- you can take decent pictures. The external hot shoe is a nice touch.
Dislike: This is one of the slowest cameras we have ever used. Focus and exposure are hit and miss affairs, particularly when the lens is at its longest focal length. The electronic viewfinder is poor and operational lag is such that any moving subject will be over the horizon between pressing the button and the camera getting around to capturing the image.
Verdict: The Kodak P712 is a disappointing camera. It is just as well that digital images are free because you must take at least 5 photos to get one worth keeping.
We understand the attraction of these super-zoom cameras. They seem to offer so much -- a pseudo SLR through-the-lens viewfinder; a lens which is the equivalent of at least three interchangeables; a compact body and, so people hope, simplicity. In our experience it takes much more effort to produce a good picture with these gimmicky cameras than with any digital SLR. The super-zooms are light and cheap and that is the end of their advantage. Kodak’s lovely little V550 is a better camera even with only 5 million pixels and a 3x zoom and optical viewfinder.
*
Posted by terry at 05:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
[ SIZE MATTERS ]
EVER HAD YOUR EMAIL INBOX STUFFED UP when a pal has sent too many pictures that are too big and the ISP blames you?
Or worse yet, have you ever stuffed up a pal’s email box by thoughtlessly sending ten pictures of your Bali trip straight from the camera?
The most frequent plea for help that comes to dpexpert is to do with email overload due to huge picture files. This is particularly a problem when a broadband user sends untreated picture files to a dial-up user. Keeping files at a manageable size is basic internet etiquette.
A picture file straight from the 6 megapixel Canon IXUS 800is is about 1.3MB in size. That is far too large for a casual email transmission. If you send four or five such files a dial-up surfer will take most of the day to download them, always supposing that the ISP will allow it.
The simplest free application that makes resizing a doddle is the little program Irfanview. (www.irfanview.com) This is essentially an image viewer which dpexpert uses as the default program to instantly open images but it also has some editing functions, one being image resizing.
Open the image in Irfanview, click on Image on the toolbar and then select Resize/Resample. In the dialogue box tick Preserve Aspect Ratio and, if necessary, change the DPI to 72. Then in Set New Size type 640 pixels for Width.
It is important not to save the file over the original so always select File/Save As and in the Save As Type drop-down choose JPG. Then give the file a new name. Tick the Show Options selection and in the side dialogue box move the Quality slider to 70.
The new file size will be somewhere between 25 and 50Kb, depending on subject matter and fine detail. This is perfect for emailing.
Both Photoshop and Photoshop Elements have an option under File to Save for Web. First resize the image to something like 640 pixels wide and then choose File/Save for Web. When this is selected a display of multiple images comes up showing the picture quality at different degrees of JPG compression. Click on the picture that appears the best compromise of size and quality and then choose Save and give the file a new name.
Serif PhotoPlus 6 is a free image editing program that mimics PhotoShop in its basic functions. The difference with this program is that when it comes to saving the resized image it is done via File/Export, not Save As. Click on Optimizer, choose JPG from the drop-down and use the quality slider to adjust the output size.
File size is determined by the original image dimensions, usually measured in pixels; the resolution expressed as DPI (dots per inch); the degree of compression (JPG is a compressed format in which some picture quality is sacrificed in order to produce smaller files -- the size/quality compromise is controlled with a slider) and the detail in the picture. Images with a lot of fine detail do not compress as well as those with large areas of solid colour -- there is nothing you can do about that, it is simply a factor.
*
MORE ON RESIZING...
Helpful readers have drawn my attention to the splendid Microsoft Image Resizing Powertoy
This is such a ripper little doodad -- and it's free -- that it really makes all of the foregoing superfluous. You downnload and install this Powertoy and it installs an option in the Right Click Context dropdown menu called Resize Pictures. You select the preferrerd size from three options that are geared to screen sizes -- 640x480, 800x600 or 1024x768 pixels. My preferred size for email is 800x600 regardless of the size of the destination display. The only thing the PowerToy doesn't do is provide user control over the degree of JPEG compression, but as a one-click image resize routine it is excellent.
Many thanks to those who have pointed me in the direction of this PowerToy. While you're on the PowerToy page do look at Mr Gates' other offerings -- there are a lot of useful mini-applications here including one that is necessary to display thumbnails of RAW images in open folders.
*
Posted by terry at 05:29 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
October 04, 2006
[ REVIEW—PENTAX K100D DSLR ]
Pentax K100D digital slr with Sigma DC 18–125 lens
Price: $1000
Highly recommended
The low-down: The Pentax K100D is a 6 megapixel single lens reflex camera supplied with a Sigma 18–125 mm lens, equivalent to 27–187 on a film camera.
Construction is solid and controls are well thought out with some being grouped under a single Function button. It sits well in the hand and is easy to use. The viewfinder is good but not as bright as some.
The camera uses four AA batteries and we found that a set of fully charged Sanyo Eneloops easily exceeded the 430 shots promised in the manual -- we took 603 and the battery indicator was still showing all segments.
There is in-body image stabilisation which is astonishingly effective. It is like carrying a weightless, invisible tripod. And being in-body it works with most (not all) lenses.
The default settings produce images that are garish and over-sharpened. However it takes a minute to adjust the settings and then the images show wide dynamic range, excellent detail and rich but true colour.
Like: Once the quality settings were reset the camera produced consistently satisfying photographs. RAW images are sensational. We had to do less exposure compensation fiddling with this camera than with any we have tested. We were amazed at the quality of pictures taken at ISO3200 -- a speed we normally treat as a gimmick of last resort.
Mirror lock-up for long exposures and a preview button that puts up an instant picture on the LCD are features you don’t find on other cameras under $2000. This is a real photographer’s tool.
Dislike: There is a slight lack of refinement. The Sigma autofocus is noisy, as is the mirror/shutter slap. The lens has marked pincushion and barrel distortion. Body and menu graphics are not elegant.
Verdict: The Pentax is a brilliant camera. This is not just a value-for-money judgement -- if it cost $600 more it would still be highly recommended. If you have any auto-focus Pentax lenses, or if you have more sense than money, you must look at this camera. We didn’t want to send it back.
See sample images from the Pentax K100D here >>>
Posted by terry at 07:42 AM | Comments (78) | TrackBack
[ SHOOTING IN THE RAW ]
DIGITAL CAMERAS DON'T REALLY TAKE COLOUR PHOTOGRAPHS. DID YOU KNOW THAT?
At the heart of a digital camera is the sensor with its array of pixels onto which the light falls. Between the sensor and the lens is a filter panel made up of microscopic red, blue and green filters. The filtered light falls onto the collector buckets on the sensor which simply counts photons, producing an electrical charge that is proportional to the amount of light falling on them. So the raw, unprocessed image that the sensor collects is in greyscale.
The in-camera processing computer turns that greyscale image into colour and saves it to the memory card, usually in a compressed form. Cameras allow the user to set the degree of compression -- referred to in the menu as Quality.
RAW (it is not an acronym but it is always written in upper case) files are saved unprocessed and uncompressed. They are typically much larger files than JPEGs. For instance, with the Pentax K100D reviewed here, the JPEG files are 2.38MB and the RAW files are 10.4MB.
RAW files must be decoded or converted into a form that can be edited and this is done with RAW converter applications. Cameras capable of RAW capture come with some sort of converter. And each camera maker has its own version of RAW. Adobe offer a free RAW converter that handles images from many different cameras and works with Photoshop.
Cameras generally do a good job of turning the photons into coloured images but in the process some of the information captured by the sensor is lost. This information carries the fine detail and nuances of tone that are on the very edge of visibility. Many photographers claim not to be able to tell the difference between high quality JPEGs and RAW images. They argue that monitors and printers can’t display this level of detail so why bother?
The advantage of RAW is not just in reproducing detail. A good RAW converter gives a high degree of post-camera control over exposure, white balance, shadow detail, brightness, contrast, saturation and sharpness -- all things that the camera calculates internally for JPEGs. It is like getting a second chance to correct mistakes made when the picture was taken.
Once the adjustments are made the image is processed, converted into another format such as TIFF or JPEG and then opened in a photo editing program.
Adobe has developed a universal RAW format called DNG. So far the only camera makers to embrace this Digital Negative format is Pentax in the forthcoming K10D and Hasselblad and Leica. Adobe argue that in a few years time there will be proprietary RAW files on discs that will not be able to be read because the software will have become obsolete. If every company standardised on DNG this would not be a problem. In the meantime Adobe offer a free converter to change Nikon, Canon, Olympus et al RAW files into DNG.
Is it worth the extra work to shoot in RAW? The dpexpert policy is that RAW is worth the trouble for our works of art -- at least we hope! -- but not worth bothering with for the informal snaps. Perfectionists of our acquaintance always shoot RAW -- we sometimes do.
*
Posted by terry at 07:36 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack