« May 2008 | Main | July 2008 »
June 25, 2008
[REVIEW—SONY CYBERSHOT W300 compact camera]
Price: $600
Astonishing
The low-down: This is an 13.6 megapixel camera with a zoom range of 30mm to 105mm, film equivalent. Body construction is superb – titanium coated stainless steel, according to the specifications. Operation can be either fully automatic or with full user control. Some functions – exposure compensation, for instance – are accessible only through the menu, which seems to be common with the Sonys. The Menu system is clear and elegant and provides good supplementary information about settings. There is optical image stabilisation built into the lens. There is face detection. The inclusion of an optical viewfinder is a boon because the LCD review screen, which is large (6.7cm) with excellent clarity and resolution, is impossible to use in bright light. Sony’s Memory Stick is the storage medium.
Like: The picture quality is very good, with fine resolution and colour rendition. The absence of noise and noise reduction artefacts comes as a shock. Even in open shadows, where noise is at its most obvious, the W300 images are clean. Exposures are accurate and focus is fast and pin sharp.
Dislike: There is no printed instruction manual, only a pamphlet that doesn’t even tell the user how to change the ISO setting or exposure compensation. And Sony’s Memory Sticks are expensive and fiddly to read in a PC card reader.
Verdict: It is a truth universally acknowledged that as the pixel density increases on a sensor so the noise goes up, ruining images with ugly grain-like spots. So why doesn’t a camera with an absurdly high pixel density produce awful pictures? We have taken photos of plain skies and there is no mottling. We have taken portraits and there is no noise in the shadows alongside noses and under eyes. We have photographed old cars with shiny, brightly coloured bodies and there is no fudging of detail. At 100 per cent enlargement there is some evidence of noise reduction blurring of fine detail, but it is so well done that it is comparable with the best after-camera noise reduction software. OK, let’s go out on a limb here – this is the best compact that we have tested. The Sony W series has always been good, but this one is amazing.
*
Posted by terry at 11:57 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
[WHITER THAN WHITE]
TODAY WE TACKLE A SERIOUS DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY ISSUE – why do the entire family look as though they are suffering from terrible jaundice in the Christmas photos? Here they are, sitting around the groaning festive board, funny hats askew and the pudding on fire and their faces are beyond ruddy. They are yellow, tending to orange.
But then, in the photos taken later in the afternoon of Uncle Cyril snoozing on the back veranda, he looks like a hypothermia victim. What is going on?
Well, it’s called white balance. Or colour temperature. And digital cameras, left to their own devices, are not as good at detecting and correcting colour temperature shifts as our eyes are. We don’t notice the orange cast from tungsten light and we automatically correct for the blue cast in shadows.
All digital cameras, straight from the box, are set to automatically correct white balance, but it doesn’t always work well. For this reason cameras have manually selected white balance settings from which the user can choose. Choosing the tungsten or shade setting will usually give a better colour accuracy in those situations. But better yet is to set the white balance manually.
This is impractical for spontaneous photography, but what we are considering here is the situation where time and the immobility of the subject are on your side. We ran some tests using different techniques and gadgets for setting the colour temperature, using a still life setup lit with sunlight through a window and two halogen flood lights with a decidedly yellow bias.
First we let the camera decide, using the Auto white balance. The result was awful. The yellow cast was dark and dirty and very difficult to correct in Photoshop.
Next we used white balance bracketing in the camera. This method involves taking one shot and letting the camera generate three saved images – one corrected to magenta on the magenta/amber axis, one corrected towards amber and the third at what the camera reckons is correct. The results were poor. There were not enough variations along the m/a axis.
Then we tried a nine set bracket, which can only be done in a few cameras, and the Nikon D300 is one of them. From nine variations we found one that was acceptable.
Then we turned to manually setting the white balance. First we used a White Balance Lens cap, which is a disc of translucent white plastic. On the camera white balance selection scale you select Preset or Manual and, following the instructions in the camera manual, you point the camera at the lit subject and take a non-photo which is used for calibration. We bought our lens caps for three different lenses from Hong Kong for a few dollars each.
Results with the lens cap method were good, with a slight tendency to blue. It was the best result so far, but not perfect.
Then we used a Lastolite flexible “card”, printed 18 per cent grey on one side and white on the other (about $28) to preset white balance. Using the grey side as the target we got the best results. The image using the grey card (simple ones can be bought for as little as $3) needed no post camera colour correction.
We recommend the lens cap for convenience and the grey card for accuracy.
*
Posted by terry at 11:54 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
June 19, 2008
[REVIEW—OLYMPUS E-420 dslr]
Price: $1100 with 14-42 and 40-150mm lenses
Impressive
The low-down: This 10 megapixel digital SLR is built around the four-thirds sensor used by Olympus and Panasonic/Leica. It is the smallest and probably the lightest DSLR on the market, but it is not flimsy. It has one of the best implementations of so-called live view, in which the LCD is used as a viewfinder. Auto focus works reasonably well in live view, which is unusual. The 6.7cm LCD screen has excellent resolution, It also serves as the camera function display and proved fast and intuitive in accessing settings. The viewfinder is cramped and not that bright. The in-built flash has good power and diffusion. And there is face recognition, a dubious first for an SLR. Burst mode is up to 3.5 frames per second.
Like: The picture quality is very good and the full feature list is truly impressive. Other makers tend to leave functions out in order to distance the entry level cameras from their posher units – Olympus doesn’t do that. The live view arrangement is almost refined. At least the auto focus works reasonably quickly, but it is not something we would use often.
Dislike: The aspect ratio of a Four Thirds sensor is 4:3. The aspect ratio of a standard or A4 photo print is 3:2. So composing in the viewfinder will be a hit and miss affair and pixels are thrown away.
Verdict: This camera has been created to make the transition from compact to DSLR as easy as possible. If you really like holding a camera at arm’s length (a ridiculous posture) to take photos rather than sensibly bracing it against your face then the E-420 lets you do it. Response in live view is not instantaneous and there are two clunks when the shutter is released, rather than one. Compact users in transition get face detection to make them feel at home. However, the fact is that we enjoyed using this camera. It doesn’t feel like an entry level unit. It does everything a $2000 camera does and it comes with excellent kit lenses. Very impressive.
*
Posted by terry at 12:40 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
[ BACK TO THE FUTURE ]
REMEMBER THE GOOD OLD DAYS (cue violins) when you bought your first single lens reflex 35mm camera? Remember how it came from the box with one lens already attached – a fixed focal length 50mm affair, with a maximum aperture of somewhere between f2.8 and f1.4?
In those days zooming was done by foot, move in for a close-up, go wide by stepping back. And focussing was done with a smoothly damped ring around the lens with a good grip for the fingers.
We were reminded of the olden days when we went snapping with the Olympus E-420 (see today’s review) fitted with a 25mm f2.8 lens (RRP $350). This little tacker is really small – a mere 23mm protruding from the camera body. It is pin sharp and free of distortion. It reminded us of how good a simple prime lens can be.
The thing is that a 25mm lens on a camera with a Four Thirds sensor has the same field of view (FOV) as a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera, so it is truly analogous to the kit lens of the past. F2.8 is a modest aperture for such a lens, so it can be kept small.
According to Wikipedia (tinyurl.com/yd4h7m) the “normal” lens is that which produces images that look natural to the human eye. Oscar Barnack, the Leica creator, settled on 50mm as the focal length that produced the best compromise between sharpness and the natural perspective when used with 35mm film.
Canon ($150) and Nikon ($235) have 50mm f1.8 lenses in their catalogues which are the least expensive lenses they make. Even though these do not have the same FOV as a 50mm lens on a film camera they seemed worth a try. Because the DSLR sensors are smaller than a 35mm film frame there is a multiplier factor that must be applied to calculate their FOV in film terms. The Nikkor 50mm behaves like a 75mm on a digital camera and the Canon looks like an 80mm. To get the equivalent FOV of a 50mm lens we would need to use a 35mm optic, but they are not cheap for either camera.
It turns out that using a 50mm lens on a DSLR is still a joy. The FOV of a slightly longer lens is better for portraits. And the advantages of the simple prime can still be enjoyed.
Anyone who has only used zoom lenses will be surprised at the sharpness of the prime. Generally speaking a cheap prime will have better contrast and colour than a zoom. And it is faster, which means that the viewfinder image is brighter. Very few people have zoom lenses with maximum apertures of f1.8, but such speed is par for a simple prime.
Prime lenses, unlike zooms, have virtually no distortion. Straight lines near the edge of the image will be straight, not bowed in or out. And they are compact and light because they are mechanically simple. Manual focussing is generally easier, although in this respect the Nikkor is the standout lens, better than the other two. Minimum focus distance is 45cm on both the Canon and Nikkor and a little closer on the Olympus, making them decent macro lenses.
Some change is not for the better. Zooms are convenient but primes are sweeter.
*
Posted by terry at 12:35 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
June 12, 2008
[REVIEW—SONY CYBERSHOT W150]
Price: $380
Outstanding
The low-down: This is an 8 megapixel camera with a zoom range of 30mm to 150mm, film equivalent. Body construction is rugged, with beautiful fit and finish. Operation can be either fully automatic or in program mode, which gives the user a degree of control. Some functions that ought to be on the camera body – exposure compensation and ISO speed, for instance – are accessible only through the menu. The Menu system is clear and elegant and provides good supplementary information about settings. The optical viewfinder is a little hard for spectacle wearers to use. The LCD review screen is large (6.7cm) with excellent clarity and resolution. The W150 can take photos in the native resolution for high definition TV sets. Unfortunately the HDMI connector, necessary for HD transfer, is an optional extra.
Like: The picture quality is good, with fine resolution and colour rendition. At ISO200 noise reduction is well judged, although there is some blurring of fine detail. The pictures are as clean as any we have seen from an 8 megapixel camera.
Dislike: There is no proper printed instruction manual, only a pamphlet that doesn’t even tell the user how to change the ISO setting or exposure compensation. If Ricoh, for example, can provide a 210 page printed manual then Sony should do no less. And we do not care for Sony’s Memory Sticks – they are too expensive and fiddly to read in a PC card reader.
Verdict: We are impressed. The black model that we had for testing is handsome. It has a high quality feel and appearance. The inclusion of an optical viewfinder is a plus, even if it is small and restricted in the coverage of image area. It has the usual gimmicks of face detection and the so-called “smile shutter” which serve no real purpose. We have yet to try the connection from camera to high definition television, but we expect to do that before the camera is returned. This display method promises to be spectacular, giving a whole new life to the family slide night. The Sony goes to the top of the list of recommendable compacts.
*
Posted by terry at 12:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
[THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS]
You are no doubt familiar with the concept of teaching Granny to suck eggs. According to our Encyclopaedia of Word and Phrase Origins it means to offer advice to someone who already knew how to do it before you were born.
So when a photographer of our acquaintance told us that he was having trouble getting satisfactory exposures with his expensive DSLR it never occurred to us to draw his attention to the exposure compensation button, right there under his nose on the camera body. This man has experience, so we assumed that he knew the function of the button marked with the + and – symbols.
However, when we said: “Well, we find that we can usually correct under or over exposure pretty easily with the exposure compensation function”, he said: “What’s that?”
Every digital camera that we have tested has either a button marked with a plus and minus sign, or something similar is accessible in the top layer of the menus. It is the most useful control on a camera.
Pressing it brings up a linear scale on one of the LCD screens, usually graduated in 1/3 EV intervals. Moving a secondary control up or down, or left or right (it varies from camera to camera) exposure is adjusted in a nonce – quickly enough to get a second chance at the shot.
On SLRs the steps can be varied, sometimes between 1/3 EV and 2 EV. (EV means “exposure value” and is a combination of f stop and shutter speed, and increasing an exposure by 1 EV may mean opening the aperture by one f stop or halving the shutter speed.)
In the days of film we took pot luck with exposures and had no idea of how things would turn out until we had the photos back from processing. Now we have instant review of images and that gives us the on-the-spot opportunity to do it again. And again, if necessary, until we get it right.
There a catch with exposure compensation. Once it has been dialled in, on most cameras, it stays set until it is manually reset. You will be caught out on occasion when you pick up the camera to take a quick photo and find that it is too dark or too light because you haven’t reset compensation since the last use.
While talking of exposure compensation, the other useful feature built into many digital cameras is auto bracketing. Using this function the camera takes three or more exposures in rapid succession, usually one under exposed, one over exposed and one at what the camera calculates is correct exposure.
Some cameras, such as the Pentax K20D and the Nikon D300 do even better. The Pentax will take up to seven exposures in a set and the Nikon will do nine. When you have nine exposures, made at 1/3 EV intervals, you have to be really unlucky not to get one that is spot on. Even with three exposures you improve your chances of getting it right, especially in a situation where the light confuses the camera’s meter.
The number of exposures in a bracket and the intervals between them are set in the menu system. The camera is set to high speed burst mode, and the shutter button is held down until the specified number of shots is taken and the camera stops firing.
Posted by terry at 12:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 05, 2008
[REVIEW—RICOH R8 compact camera]
Price: $550
Good compact, great lens
The low-down: This is a 10 megapixel camera with a lens focal length range of 28mm to 200mm, film equivalent. Body construction is reasonably rugged, with most functions accessible from dedicated buttons or through the useful joystick. Pushing the joystick straight in gives immediate access to exposure compensation, ISO, white balance and a histogram. Functions are selected and adjusted by moving the joystick on its x and y axes. Very simple, intuitive and well thought-out. The 6.7 cm LCD, the only viewfinder, is reasonably bright and useable on overcast days. There are two programmable My Settings on the mode wheel, plus movie and automatic, which is more like P than full auto, and that’s a good thing.
Like: The picture quality is generally good, with fine resolution and colour rendition. The lens is excellent, particularly sharp at the wide end of the zoom with no discernible barrel distortion, which is impressive for a 28mm focal length optic. The camera is very responsive with fast auto focus and no trace of shutter lag. Macro mode is excellent.
Dislike: We are bound to mention image noise, although it is reduced well enough in the camera. There is some loss of fine detail, but it will not show up in small prints or on a monitor. Still, fewer pixels would be better. Auto white balance performs inconsistently.
Verdict: We subjected the Ricoh R8 to the tourist test – taking it around town snapping the sorts of things that any traveller might photograph in a foreign city. The results are consistently good, helped in no small part by the outstanding, distortion-free lens. There are plenty of noise reduction artefacts visible at full image size, so this is not a camera for making A3 prints or for severe cropping of the picture. On the other hand enlargement up to 5 by 7 cm will be better than acceptable. Camera House are selling a 25th anniversary edition of the R8 for $550.
Posted by terry at 12:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
[PHOTOGRAPHING DEATH AND YOUTH]
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHS OF DEAD AND DYING PEOPLE? It certainly doesn’t sound like art, does it. Nevertheless an exhibition of what we might call necrographs has been moving around the country for the past year.
Reveries–Photography and Mortality, has so far been seen at the National Portrait Gallery, the University Art Museum in Queensland and at the Mornington Regional Gallery. The photographs are mostly pretty grim. The images of dying and dead babies are particularly hard to take. And William Yang’s photographic journal of the decline and death from AIDS of his friend, Allan, are unnerving.
So, we might ask, why didn’t the prime minister and the leader of her majesty’s loyal opposition warn us that these pictures are revolting? If they find a photograph of a healthy adolescent revolting what must they make of these images of death?
While some of the photographs have appealing aesthetic qualities most are simply documentary, something that the camera does well. They are not art, any more than the snaps we take on holidays or at family occasions are art.
The best newspaper, magazine, pornographic and advertising photography is a technical triumph, but it holds little interest beyond the subject matter. A work of art, on the other hand, is something that is worth a space on the wall even when we have no idea what the story of the picture might be. It is a thing of beauty, shock or intrigue for its own sake. It is open to us to enter the work and make our own story – it’s called interpretation.
In the history of photography there have been many competent technicians but only a handful of artists whose work is created with the machinery of photography but originates in the mysterious imagination of the artist.
Bill Henson is an artist, not a technician. He has a recognisable style, just as van Gogh and Beethoven had recognisable styles. His style is consistent, no matter what the subject matter – a crumpled newspaper on the ground, two ships coming into port, a twilight streetscape or a naked adolescent. To take the last subject out of the totality of the Henson vision and to declare it “creepy” or “revolting” is to do the artist an injustice. Have a look at his work, with his portraits in context.
The New Yorker magazine compares Henson’s work to “Flemish still lifes” in their depiction of “battered landscapes and fragile, wispy youths”.
Henson’s work is chilly and austere. It is also daring in its resistance to the sharper-is-better tyranny that has most of us under its sway. His pictures have a wintry, misty beauty that is the antithesis of pornography, which is warm, voluptuous and pin sharp. Only the most dirty minded self-appointed guardians of our morals would see any similarity of intent or style between Henson and Penthouse.
Mind you, Bill Henson’s work is profoundly depressing for the average amateur snapper with pretensions to being a “photographer”. Stand in front of one of his massive prints, produced with old-fashioned wet-process chemicals, and you know you could never match it. You could imitate his style easily, even with digital, but imitation is merely the tribute that mediocrity pays to genius.
*
Posted by terry at 12:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack