« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 »
May 29, 2008
[REVIEW—SIGMA DP1 compact camera]
Price: $1100
Sad camera, magnificent pictures
The low-down: This is a unique compact camera – it has a large sensor straight from the Sigma DSLR. The sensor, of the Foveon type, is only used by Sigma and Polaroid. (For a technical description see the Wikipedia entry: tinyurl.com/tqlyj) The camera has a retro look with very few user controls accessible from buttons on the body. The fixed focal length 28mm (film equivalent) lens can be focussed automatically or from a wheel on the camera body. The fixed wide angle lens rules out frame-filling portraits and the digital zoom is best left alone. There is no macro setting. The optical viewfinder shown in the illustration is a $190 option. The LCD is 6.4cm and performs poorly in sunlight and dim lighting, where it turns monochrome.
Like: The picture quality is without peer amongst compact cameras. The larger sensor produces images comparable with those from DSLRs. Superb sharpness, resolution, dynamic range and colour in RAW at low ISO speeds. The lens is excellent.
Dislike: The need to plunge into the menu system for every control other than exposure compensation is a pain. But the worst feature of this camera is the time that it takes to write an image to the memory card. From pressing the shutter to finished write is 15 seconds, and for that time the camera is locked. 15 seconds doesn’t sound much until you find yourself itching to take a second photo immediately, as you can with most cameras.
Verdict: The Sigma DP1 is not a pleasant camera to use. In many ways it feels like a throw-back to the bad old days when compacts were in their infancy. Responsive is not a word you would use for this unit. But then, just as you are ready to throw the camera away you see the picture and you love it. RAW files have astonishing latitude for post camera processing and the included software does a good job of turning RAW into TIFF or JPEG files. And if the Sigma DP2, when it comes, fixes the user-hostile problems it will be a great camera. Recommended for sunlit landscapes and architecture, not for portraits and social snaps.
*
Posted by terry at 12:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
[ STUFF HAPPENS ]
AS THE GREAT AMERICAN STOIC PHILOSOPHER, F. GUMP, once so pithily observed: “Excrement happens!” And for digital photographers it happens in especially aggravating forms.
Take, for instance, the experience of B. He has just bought a Sony compact camera, similar to one he once owned but has since been purloined and no doubt offered for auction on the internet or been converted into cash at the neighbourhood pawn broker. Anyway, we digress.
As they say on the aeroplanes, all cameras may look the same but there are subtle differences. And in the case of B’s Sony the subtle difference seems to have been in the handling of image file deletion. He thought he was deleting one file but he erased them all. He tells us this with a note of depair in his voice, assuming that his priceless pictures are gone forever into cyber space.
It’s no often that we get the privilege of being a bringer of good news, but we were able to cheer B up no end. Deleting files on a camera memory card does not destroy them. It merely hides them. And they can be tracked down and recovered with a little help from a free application called PC Inspector Smart Recovery (tinyurl.com/374d8b)
When files are erased from a memory card it is not the image data that is deleted, merely the direction to it contained in the disc’s table of contents. (It’s not really called table of contents, but you get the idea.) So if all the files are erased it is akin to ripping the table of contents out of a book and leaving the chapters intact.
PC Inspector Smart Recovery locates and recovers data on a memory card, as long as it hasn’t been corrupted in some way, such as being over-written by a new file. Recovery can be done from the camera, connected to the computer through a USB, or it can be done with the card in a card reader.
We bulk erased 58 JPEG files from an SD card and recovered 56 perfectly. Two were corrupted and were only partially restored.
OK, that was too easy. Let’s throw a real challenge at PC Inspector Smart Recovery by reformatting the card in a different camera. The card was originally used in a Canon, so the files have the Canon naming convention. What if we format the card in a Nikon?
PC Inspector still found 57 or the 58 Canon photos and perfectly recovered all but three of them.
We shot and erased an AVI movie file on yet another camera, using the same SD card, and attempted to recover it with PC Inspector. Results were not reassuring. VLC Media Player snagged on some hidden corruption and told us that the file was “broken”. We tried again with a different camera with the same result. It seems that once a movie file is erased in a compact camera the chances of recovery are virtually nil.
PC Inspector will also recover most RAW files. We shot and erased four Nikon NEF RAW files and recovered them perfectly.
And here’s a PS: if you buy a Lexar memory card you will probably find that you are offered a free download of their Image Rescue software. Be warned, the offer expires shortly after you buy the card and you cannot download it twice, so save the installation file.
*
Posted by terry at 12:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 22, 2008
[REVIEW—CANON EOS 450D DSLR ]
Price: $1650, with 18-55 and 55-250 lenses
Competent entry level SLR with so-so lenses
The low-down: This 12 megapixel camera is Canon’s cheapest DSLR. We tried the twin lens kit with an 18-55 and a 55-250mm lens. Construction of camera and lenses uses much plastic material, so it is light but insubstantial. The LCD screen also serves as the function display. The LCD appears to be the same as that on the EOS 40D – large but low resolution. The viewfinder is a pentamirror, rather than a prism. It is reasonably bright. Ergonomics are OK but not comparable with the Nikon D60. However the Canon beats the Nikon on auto focus lens compatibility and it has auto bracketing. Continuous shooting speed is 3.5 shots per second. The menus are clear and elegant. Both the kit lenses have image stabilisation. Cost cutting shows in the plastic mounts and rough auto focus.
Like: The underlying picture quality from the camera is superb. There is a wide dynamic range and noise is not an issue. Even out of focus, underexposed backgrounds are noise free. Auto white balance is generally good, except under incasdescent lights. The flash is powerful and well diffused and the colour is excellent. Resolution of fine detail when using a decent lens is exceptionally good.
Dislike: Keep in mind that all of the above is praise for the camera body, not the lenses. The cheap kit lenses are not good enough for the body. When fitted with a good quality lens you see what the camera can really do.
Verdict: Once again an entry level DSLR is let down by its kit lenses. However we did take the camera to an outdoor wedding and used the 55-250 lens exclusively and the combination was better than competent. Focus is a little erratic and the image stabilisation isn’t very effective. But in the areas that mattered – keeping fine detail in white dresses and black suits – the output was exemplary. Fortunately at weddings the epitome of sharpness is not what’s wanted, rather a little softening of the fine details flatters the bride, and that’s what we got. The shutter is loud during the quiet bits of the service! We love the camera but would opt for the Enthusiast Kit at $2000 RRP.
*
Posted by terry at 01:01 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
[PINS AND BARRELS]
The Nikon Coolpix P60 shows just about the worst barrel distortion we have encountered in a compact camera
A PLAINTIVE PLEA COMES FROM READER N. He wants to know the meaning of arcane terms that pop up from time to time in these columns.
For instance, what is “barrel distortion”? He likes the sound of it, he says, but does not make clear whether he is attracted to its voluptuousness or its connection with ale on tap.
And barrel distortion hardly ever occurs on its own in the text. It is usually accompanied by its optical companion, “pin cushion distortion”. So, what are these twin evils of the cheap, mass produced lens? And some not-so-cheap lenses, too.
Wide angle lenses – that is any lens with a focal length shorter than 28mm in film terms – are almost always affected to a greater or lesser degree by barrel distortion. The name describes the phenomenon. At and near the edges of the image straight lines begin to bow outwards, producing a ludicrous effect when the subject is a building with straight vertical and horizontal lines, as most buildings have.
Pincushion distortion is the opposite effect. It usually shows up in zoom lenses at the longest focal length and it appears as inward bowing (concave, we might say) lines near the image edge.
With fixed focal length prime lenses neither of these distortions is a problem, although any very short focal length lens will have the effect, hence the generic term “fisheye” for prime lenses shorter than about 16mm. Zooms are a different kettle of fisheyes, particularly the cheap little zooms fitted to compact cameras. Furthermore, the longer the zoom range the more likely it is that distortion will be a problem.
We are often asked our opinion of the various 18–200mm lenses that are all the rage for DSLRs. It looks like an ideal walking-about lens, giving a film-equivalent range of 27–300mm. You could use it to shoot the Eiffel Tower from close-up and still be able to look into a lion’s eye on safari in the Serengeti. It looks too good to be true, and it is. These lenses not only cover an amazing focal length range, they are also cheap.
The Nikkor 18–200mm vibration reduction lens is one of the better examples. The German lens testing site, www.photozone.de says: “Extreme zooms tend to suffer from rather hefty distortions and the AF-S 18-200mm is no exception in this respect. In fact the amount of barrel distortions (4.1%) at 18mm broke a new negative record…” Pincushioning at the long end is also extreme.
Both barrel and pincushion can be corrected in Photoshop, under Filter/Distort/Lens Correction. There is a simple slider to straighten the lines near the edge.
And while we are in this function in Photoshop there is also a correcting tool for converging verticals. You know the problem, standing on street level, looking up at the Empire State building, and the picture is of a building leaning backwards and vanishing into a diminishing point. Photoshop will correct this distortion, but the end result might show some other slight aberrations near ground level.
Optical distortion is not a deal breaker when buying a camera or lens, but in our experience the more modest a zoom range – say 3x – the better the lens turns out to be.
*
Posted by terry at 12:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 15, 2008
[REVIEW—CANON POWERSHOT A650is]
Price: $500
More pixel madness
The low-down: This is 12 megapixel camera with image stabilisation and a 6x zoom lens (35–210mm film equivalent). There is face detection, which works about 10 per cent of the time. The swivelling LCD is a boon for low level, waist level and self portrait shots. The optical viewfinder is useful, but does not show all the captured image area. It is powered by four AA batteries and did well with standard alkalines. There is full user control, including aperture and shutter priority settings. Menus are clear and the various function control buttons are well laid out and logical. Supplementary wide angle and telephoto lenses can be fitted. The camera is larger than the average compact and is easier to hold than most, because of the bulge of the battery compartment.
Like: The flash is particularly good, with fine colour balance and pleasant diffusion. Red eye is not a problem. The movie mode is surprisingly useable, although the sound quality won’t win any academy awards. The camera is responsive with little noticeable shutter lag. Focus is quick and accurate. When conditions are ideal and the ISO setting is kept under 200 the results are pleasantly sharp and punchy, at least in the middle of the zoom range.
Dislike: Even at low ISO speeds image noise is a problem. 12 megapixel sensors in compact cameras are ridiculous. It is hard to know which is more objectionable, the noise (grain) or the attempts at noise reduction that blur fine detail.
Verdict: Once again we are dealing with what is basically a good camera, as far as design and build are concerned, with excellent features, like the optical viewfinder and the articulated LCD, which is let down by the image sensor. However, allowing for the pixel caveat, the Canon A650is can produce decent images that will take a small degree of enlargement and will look good on a monitor. Correctly exposed photos taken under even lighting – which includes the excellent flash – will satisfy most users. We would suggest that prospective buyers should look at the Canon Powershot A590is, which is $200 cheaper, with a less ambitious zoom, an 8 megapixel sensor and without the swivelling LCD.
*
Posted by terry at 01:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
[ WHAT’S THE CATCH? ]
OUT HERE ON THE GLOBAL INFORMATION SUPER HIGHWAY we are constantly astonished to find really useful applications and services that cost nothing. Free. Gratis.
And being of a naturally suspicious nature we can’t help asking ourselves: Where’s the catch? Who are these cyber Albert Schweitzers and Mother Teresas dedicated to making us happier and asking nothing in return?
We are not talking about open source software but products and services coming from commercial corporations, such as Adobe, for instance.
Have a look at Adobe’s new online photo editing, storing and sharing service, Photoshop Express. (www.photoshop.com/express/) It’s in beta form at the moment and it’s free.
There is the usual intrusive sign-in procedure, and once you’re in you upload the photos to be edited and start the process, which is based on an intuitive toolbar on the left of the screen. There are tools for crop, straighten, exposure, white balance, highlight and shadow levels, red eye removal and sharpening. A colour image can be turned into monochrome, with a selection of filter effects, and there is an attractive soft-focus glamour filter.
The retouch tool is similar to the healing brush in Photoshop and does a good job of removing warts and moles. Most editing functions are based on making a selection from an array of variations at the top of the screen with the change shown immediately on the main image.
There is even an option to turn a photograph into a sketch – well, in theory. The end result is pretty avant-garde.
The Undo button brings up a strip of images showing every step in the editing process. It works like History in Photoshop and provides for back-tracking to any point in the sequence.
Once the editing is complete the photos can be stored on the Adobe server. 2gb of space is provided for every user. The images are accessible as a slide show, with limited user control over the display.
The only problems we had with Photoshop Express were that the upload is slow – but that is a BigPond issue, not Adobe’s – and the images showing the variations from which choices are made are too small. In fact they are so small that even on a large, high resolution monitor it is difficult to pick differences between adjacent images.
Speaking of slow uploads on BigPond cable, that also affects our other useful freebie, YouSendIt.
YouSendIt (www.yousendit.com) is a service for transferring files that are so large your ISP won’t let you email them. The service is offered in four flavours: Pro, Business and Corporate, which incur a monthly charge, and Lite, which is free.
Lite subscribers can send files up to 100MB in size, one file at a time. To send multiple files we first Zip them into a single file. There is a monthly transmission limit of 1GB and a file can be downloaded a maximum of 100 times – in other words that’s the bulk transmission limit.
YouSendIt can install itself in the right button context menu of Windows for easy access. The file is uploaded – very slowly on BigPond – and an email notification is sent to the recipient, who clicks on an embedded link and retrieves the file. It is brilliantly simple and it is free.
Perhaps we should send them flowers. Or chocolates. We love them.
*
Posted by terry at 01:40 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 07, 2008
[REVIEW—NIKON COOLPIX P60]
Price: $370
Modest camera, modest price
The low-down: This is an 8 megapixel camera with sensor shift image stabilisation and a 5x zoom lens (36–180mm film equivalent). The body is well made and looks like a camera, not a fashion accessory. The bulge on the right hand end holds two AA batteries and serves as a grip. There is an electronic viewfinder to supplement the LCD. Controls are well laid out and logical. Full manual control of aperture and shutter speed is provided, a rarity in compacts.
Like: The quality of images is satisfactory. Colour reproduction is generally accurate. The vibration reduction slightly increases the opportunities for hand holding in low light.
Dislike: The electronic viewfinder has no dioptre adjustment, so everything looks out of focus to spectacle wearers. Presumably an EVF is cheaper to make than an optical viewfinder. At wideangle the lens exhibits extreme barrel distortion. Dynamic range is restricted with highlights tending to blow out – a problem with most high pixel count compacts.
Verdict: Assessing compact cameras is difficult. Measured against the standards set by the best digital SLRs they are all inadequate. Images are noisy. The cheap lenses distort. One eminent reviewer says of a similar compact: "The question this camera raises is: if the extra megapixels added are too mushed-up by noise reduction to allow for large prints or cropping-in on images, then what are they good for?" There is a destructive numbers race on. The P60 boasts that it has 8.1 megapixels, a 5X zoom and useable ISO up to 2000. Nikon is not alone in numbers madness, so we should compare like with like. The Canon Ixus 80is is the same price and also has 8 megapixels. It has a 3x zoom with less distortion. Noise reduction is applied in-camera for both and the result is loss of fine detail. Set at ISO100 both cameras can produce snappy pictures suitable for the Internet or postcard size prints. The choice may come down to size -- the Canon fits easily in any pocket. The Nikon doesn't. But the Nikon has more user control and uses AA batteries, which is a good thing in compacts.
*
Posted by terry at 11:37 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
[ CHOICE RANKS DIGITAL CAMERAS ]
HERE'S SOME NEWS that will set the digital cat amongst the megapixel pigeons. Choice magazine is rating cameras this month and they reckon that if image quality is your top priority you should go for the Canon SX100is.
The Canon SX100is compact ($400) gets an image qaulity rating of 61 percent on the Choice table, whereas the Canon 40D DSLR ($2300) manages a miserable 53 per cent.
In fact in the top 16 cameras rated for image quality there is only one DSLR, the Nikon D80. Or, put another way, 7 DSLRs have lower ratings than 15 compacts.
Margaret Brown, camera tester for PhotoReview Australia, says that she is “surprised” by the ratings. She would never compare a compact with a DSLR. “Apples and oranges”, she says. Ms Brown uses the standard Imatest (www.imatest.com) process in order to eliminate, as far as possible, subjectivity in the process.
Dpreview.com, the London-based camera review web site, now owned by Amazon, may be putting the cameras back on the test bench to see where they went wrong. They give the Canon EOS 40D SLR an image rating of 9, and they say: “…the results speak for themselves; colorful (yet accurate) detailed images with low noise even at high sensitivities.”
Choice tells us that the Canon S5is superzoom is better in image quality than the 40D by about 10 percent. Dpreview, on the other hand, says of the S5is: “…Canon took an already great camera and…then put inside it a sensor that is noisier than its predecessor, meaning that – for the most part – the resolution increase simply isn't reflected in the output, thanks to the need for stronger noise reduction.” The camera gets a 7.5 rating for image quality.
Compact cameras, including those that Choice rates as having superior image quality, suffer from picture deterioration as the pixels increase. Noise (grain) levels rise and dynamic range – the ability to hold detail in shadows and highlights – diminishes. Neither of these issues is a serious problem with the Sony, Canon, and Nikon DSLRs that are rated as inferior.
So what does Choice know that has eluded other well regarded reviewers? The magazine shares results with a number of consumer associations around the world. “All the tests are carried out by professional labs in Europe that specialise in photographic testing.” But does anyone in Australia keep an eye out for anomalies that may need explanation?
Christopher Zinn, media spokesman for Choice, says that “Choice tests compact digital cameras and DSLRs using the same methodology because general consumers might consider buying either type and want side by side comparison.” He says that image quality for digital cameras is appraised by a group of experienced individuals who aren’t aware of which camera produced each image. “That way they can’t be influenced by brand, model or the latest press release from a manufacturer.” And experienced testers in Australia do watch for anomalies in the results.
We can only say of the image quality ratings that we beg to differ. We have yet to meet a compact camera that we consider matches any DSLR in image quality. Perhaps the ratings will give comfort to Choice subscribers who think that they have bought well when they find that their $550 camera is rated higher than some poseur’s $2300 DSLR. But Imaging has no plans to swap our Canon 40D for a Canon S5is.
*
Posted by terry at 11:35 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack