« January 2010 | Main | March 2010 »
February 25, 2010
[REVIEW—RICOH CX3 compact camera]
Price: $500
Clever thinking
The low-down: This 10 megapixel camera comes with a “back illuminated” CMOS sensor which is said to offer better low light performance. In effect the order of layers in the sensor sandwich are rearranged to increase light capture, improving the signal to noise ratio. The lens is 28–300mm film-equivalent and image stabilisation is by sensor shift. As with other Ricohs the high resolution LCD screen is outstanding, but still not very useful in bright light. Controls are well thought out with important functions easily accessible. The company’s two-exposure dynamic range extender is included. There are various high burst speed settings. The auto bracketing of exposure, white balance, colour/black and white and focus is useful. Converging verticals, seen when a skyscraper is shot from ground level, can be corrected in the camera.
Like: At modest lens focal length settings and at ISO speeds of 200 or less the image quality is outstanding. Exposure and white balance are impressive. Lens sharpness and image resolution are generally good. We like the consistency of results, particularly with judicial use of the manual over-rides.
Dislike: We took the CX3 out to a street festival on a cloudy-bright afternoon and could see little or nothing on the LCD. The time must come when camera makers admit that an optical viewfinder is essential.
Verdict: The camera comes with a comprehensive, well written user manual and we strongly recommend that it be read carefully. There are a lot of useful features here that you are not going to stumble across by accident or find intuitively. It can be used as a point and shoot box camera, but to do so is to miss out on its clever features. The CX3 appears to differ from the CX2 mainly in its “back illuminated” sensor.
*
Posted by terry at 10:09 AM | Comments (2)
[NOT ALL CAMERAS ARE BORN EQUAL]
A digital camera is a digital camera, right? And the chaps with the big black digital single lens reflex things are poseurs with more money than sense? And everyone knows that a DSLR is way too complicated for the average person to use. Hmmm…
Do all camera types produce the same results? No. The very best compact cameras cannot match the picture qualities of the cheapest entry-level DSLRs. We outlined the reasons last week – fewer pixels on a larger sensor area will beat more pixels on a smaller sensor for image noise and dynamic range (the ability to preserve detail in both shadows and highlights). Makers of compact cameras fight the noise issue with aggressive noise reduction in their image processing “engines”. This works well enough for small prints or for PC monitor display but is unsatisfactory for larger prints. If your intention is strictly 10 X 15cm prints or to share pictures over the interweb then compact quality is acceptable. If you fancy cropping images and printing to A4 or larger you might not be content with compact quality.
Aren’t DSLRs more complicated than compacts? No, most DSLRs are less complicated than compacts. They can be set to full auto mode, just like a small camera, or they can be used in manual mode. All the entry level DSLRs have “scene” modes, just like compacts. The big difference between the camera types is the viewfinder – a true optical, eye-level viewfinder beats holding an LCD at arm’s length – and speed of auto focus. Compacts use a system called contrast detect which is slower than the phase detect system of a DSLR. It is easier to get a properly exposed and focused image in a DSLR than in a compact, even for a beginner.
Do compacts have any advantages? Yes, they are smaller, generally cheaper and less ostentatious. You can take them to the footy, where, we are told, SLRs are verboten.
Isn’t a tiny all-in-one 28 to 300mm lens fixed to the camera better than a bag full of interchangeable lenses? No, not if you want decent image quality. A 300mm equivalent lens on a compact camera is a gimmick. It might look like the ideal setup for bird photography but it won’t resolve the fine detail in feathers in the same way as a good long lens on an SLR.
Is there are third way? Yes. The Micro Four Thirds cameras get close to SLR quality in a compact body, but they are not cheap. The Olympus E-P2, E-P1 and E-PL1 and the Panasonic GF1, G1 and GH1 fall between a compact and a DSLR in bulk and mass. They lack the eye level optical viewfinder, but in some models have an electronic viewfinder. They have interchangeable lenses. The sensors are larger than in a compact and the image quality is excellent. Auto-focus is by the slower contrast detect system, so they are not as responsive as a DSLR. When the prices will fall they will become a serious alternative to the two established camera forms.
*
Posted by terry at 10:07 AM | Comments (1)
February 18, 2010
[REVIEW—COREL PAINTSHOP PHOTO PRO X3]
Price: $135 new $109 upgrade from www.corel.com.au [Free trial]
The affordable alternative
The low-down: This is the latest iteration of the only serious alternative to the industry-standard photo editing program, Photoshop. PaintShop Photo Pro X3 is priced against the cut-down Photoshop Elements, but is more akin to big Photoshop in features. In fact there are some valuable functions in PaintShop that are only in Photoshop as plug-ins and add-ons. For instance, most RAW file formats open directly. The Skin-smoothing tool does a lovely job. Picture frames and Picture Tubes have always been a strong point of PaintShop. Lens distortion correction tools are excellent. The Makeover tool will turn any female subject into Andie MacDowell in a nonce, removing blemishes and wrinkles, whitening teeth, adding a tan and, would you believe, Thinifying! They sound like gimmicks, but they are valuable tools for getting the best from portraits.
Like: This program has the best background eraser we have used. It really does do a deep etch around a subject outline, including whispy hair, in the easiest, cleanest way. Corel are realists and have included all Photoshop formats in the Open File menu. The High Dynamic Range blend function works well in creating images from sets of photos.
Dislike: The interface is a bit cluttered, but it benefits from changing some of the default settings. RAW files from the newish Canon 7D don’t open properly.
Verdict: PaintShop Pro is an excellent program at a reasonable price. It is certainly better featured than Photoshop Elements. However, the problem is that Photoshop is so well established that it is now a verb. As with MS Word or PowerPoint or the ubiquitous iPod the product name is now generic. You have to be brave to go against the flow, but if you have more sense than money then PaintShop Pro X3 is an intelligent alternative.
*
Posted by terry at 08:12 AM | Comments (2)
[DIGITAL FAQs Part II]
This week we continue with our digital FAQs. Last week it was all about sensors and pixels – today it is about cameras and lenses.
A lens is a lens is a lens, right? No. A lens may be mass produced by machines or it may be handcrafted by skilled artisans. It may be made to the finest tolerances or it may be made by a near-enough machine. It may be fast – that is have a wide maximum aperture – or slow, with a small aperture. It may be made of many complex glass elements to correct aberrations inherent in simple lenses or it may suffer from distortions of various sorts. It may have good or poor contrast, accurate or inaccurate colour rendition, high or low resolving power.
My compact camera has a 10x zoom. This has to be better than my pal’s 3X zoom. Not necessarily. The Panasonic LX3 is the company’s most expensive compact camera. It has a 24–60mm, 2.5X Leica-branded zoom, arguably the best lens on any compact camera, yet it has hardly any zoom range at all. The company makes cheaper cameras with zooms with up to 18X range. Zoom range does not equal quality. And there is another thing – even with image stabilisation in the lens or in the camera body it is hard to hold a camera still when the lens is at its maximum focal length. The big number is not always usable.
Does this apply to interchangeable lenses on DSLRs? Yes, it does. It is possible to buy an 18–250mm zoom lens for about the same price as a good 50mm fixed focal length optic. So why not buy the zoom? There is no good reason not to buy it, but be aware that it will be optically and mechanically inferior to the fixed focal length lens. In lenses the ratio of price to quality is strictly 1:1. You get exactly what you pay for. Most camera companies make three ranges of lenses – the very cheap and cheerful for entry-level DSLRs; the not quite so cheap for the more discerning buyer; and the hideously expensive for the professional. The difference is not brand snobbery, as it is in cars, which will all get you from A to B equally well. The difference is in the quality of manufacture and the precision of operation. Olympus, for instance, make good low-cost lenses for their entry level cameras, but the moment you change one of those lenses for their pro optics you notice the difference. Sony sell reasonable kit lenses with their own name on them, but their Zeiss branded lenses are something else altogether. And the price difference is enough to make a chap faint – one costs hundreds, the other thousands and yet their numbers look much the same. A cheap 18–250mm lens is not a bargain, it is a cheap lens.
Next week in Digital FAQs we consider the question: Is the digital single lens reflex simply an expensive doodad for poseurs?
Posted by terry at 08:10 AM | Comments (0)
February 17, 2010
DPEXPERT’S NIKON D80 BODY FOR SALE
SOLD!
Posted by terry at 02:48 PM | Comments (0)
February 12, 2010
[REVIEW—OLYMPUS PEN E-P2]
Price: $1800
Sweet compromise between size and quality
The low-down: This 12.3 megapixel camera is the second Olympus entry into the Micro Four Thirds camera category (which it shares with Panasonic). The E-P2 is essentially the E-P1 with an added electronic viewfinder which is not optional, but comes as part of the kit. It slips into the flash mount and plugs into a socket just under the bracket. The standard 14–42mm collapsible Zuiko lens is the same as offered with the E-P1. The new camera is distinguished with a pleasant black finish. It is best to think of it as an Olympus E650 DSLR with the mirror and prism removed, meaning that the relatively compact body delivers SLR quality images. There is 720 line video recording. The LCD is unchanged and is low resolution compared with the Panasonic GF1, its only competitor. Otherwise the fit and finish are exemplary. Some reviewers complain about the menu interface but we have had no issues with it.
Like: The image quality from the E-P twins is superb. Colours are rich without being over-saturated. Auto focusing and exposure are good with exposure compensation easily to hand. The electronic viewfinder – not our favourite device – does make it easier to use legacy manual focus lenses.
Dislike: The EVF is a cut above any other we have used but it still falls short on showing true-to-life brightness and contrast. It is like looking at a very small TV very close up, but at least in this case it is a high definition TV.
Verdict: The Olympus twins are wonderful cameras. We took our E-P1 to the tennis and used it with an old lens, attached with an official adapter and it gave good results without being ostentatious. The E-P2 is just that little bit better.
*
Posted by terry at 09:07 AM | Comments (0)
[DIGITAL FAQs]
As we have reported before our friends and acquaintances tell us that they read Imaging every week. Sadly, they are merely blowing sunshine up the Imaging drawers. They always add: “And I never understand a word of it.”
So, to aid comprehension we presume to offer a sort of glossary-cum-FAQ (that’s frequently asked question, in case you’re wondering) of digital photography.
What is a digital camera? It is a camera that has a light sensitive sensor in the place of film.
What is a sensor? It is a flat array of light receptors that we call pixels.
What is a pixel? A pixel is a single light sensitive receptor on the surface of a sensor that turns light into an electric charge.
Are all sensors the same? No. They vary in size and the density of pixels on the sensor surface varies. Compact cameras usually have sensors about 6 X 5mm. Olympus and Panasonic use the Four Thirds sensors in their better cameras – 18 X 13.5mm – and Pentax, Canon, Nikon and Sony use “APS” sized sensors. APS stands for Advanced Photographic System – that was the last development in film frame size before digital. An APS sensor is about 24 X 16mm (Canon’s size is slightly smaller).
Is bigger better? Yes. A larger sensor has a lower pixel density.
What is pixel density? The Nikon D3X is a full-frame camera with 24.5 million pixels on an area 36 X 24mm. That is 2.8 million pixels per square centimetre. The Nikon Coolpix S640 – a compact camera – has 12.2m pixels on a 6.13 X 4.6mm sensor. That is 43m pixels per square centimetre. The pixels on the S640 are much smaller than those on the D3.
Do pixel density and size matter? Yes. Every pixel (photo receptor) is generating a small electrical charge even when there is no light falling on it. This background charge is called “noise”. When light falls on the sensor a larger charge is generated – the picture information. The best cameras have the biggest signal to noise ratio – that is the charge we need to make the picture is much greater than the spurious steady-state charge and the noise (like film grain) becomes relatively insignificant. The bigger the pixel the better the signal to noise ratio. When the noise is too great the camera removes the noise effect by blurring the spurious grain but this also blurs other fine detail in the image.
What is ISO sensitivity? The International Organisation for Standardisation sets the standards for measuring sensor sensitivity to light. Film ISO speed is increased by adding more and larger grains of silver to the emulsion. Digital ISO speed is increased with electronic amplification. When the desired charge is amplified so is the unwanted noise amplified, and visible noise increases with ISO sensitivity to the point where a photo becomes unusable. A compact camera that offers ISO 2400 is pulling your leg.
Next week: cameras and lenses – why cheap is not the same as bargain.
Posted by terry at 09:04 AM | Comments (0)
February 04, 2010
[REVIEW—PENTAX K-x DSLR]
Price: $800
Astonishing value
The low-down: This 12.4 megapixel camera is the Pentax entry model, supplied with an 18–55mm (27–82 film equivalent) lens with image stabilisation built into the body. The medium resolution 70mm LCD doubles as the camera status screen. The body is small and construction is good with no squeaks from the plastic casing. We wonder about the durability of the screen printed control labels. The Pentax kit lens has a smooth zoom and focus movement, although focus could do with more damping. Auto focus is quick and accurate. Controls are well laid out and ergonomics are good. The viewfinder is bright enough for a penta-mirror. There is live view and movie mode (720 line in widescreen aspect ratio). The printed user manual is outstanding. Pentax’s high dynamic range function is included, combining three frames and processing a composite image with extended detail in shadows and highlights. It uses four AA batteries. It comes in a choice of four body colours.
Like: The feature list on this camera puts its competitors to shame. No one else has anything like the HDR expander. The ability to record RAW files in Adobe’s universal DNG format is a boon. Image quality is very good. Continuous shooting mode is up to nearly 5 frames per second.
Dislike: Only time will tell if the screen printed control labels rub off too easily. Mirror/shutter slap is unrefined.
Verdict: The K-x is remarkably well featured for the low price. Pentax make the competitors look like miserable penny-pinchers with their cut-down entry models. The beauty of this camera is that no user will be frustrated, wishing for this or that additional feature. There is nothing that any serious photographer could ask for that the K-x can’t do. For a young person dipping a toe into serious photography this is an ideal camera.
*
Posted by terry at 07:24 AM | Comments (0)
[BUYING BY NUMBERS]
Why, oh why, we ask, do people persist in buying by numbers?
Of course we know the answer -- because they feel that is all they can trust. The bigger the number the better the gadget, right? A 125 cm TV has to be better than a 100 cm telly, doesn't it? Regardless of the size of the viewing room or the quality of the picture, bigger must be better.
And if the bigger one costs less than the smaller one then it's not only better, you've got a bargain. Shoppers don't even stop to ask themselves why bigger should be cheaper than smaller when common sense would make you wonder if there is something else going on here.
Back when hi-fi systems were the gadget de jour average shoppers put more trust in the number of watts per channel than in what their ears told them, so the big number phenomenon is not new.
Let's take the case of cameras. The camera makers' research tells them that the average customer wants pixels, the more the better. They don't know what pixels are and they are ignorant of the physics of digital photography, but never mind that, 14 megapixels has to be better than ten any day.
A few years ago, when 8 megapixels was considered to be bordering on the absurd, Canon announced that they were pulling out of the pixel race. From now on the emphasis would be on the quality of the image rather than the number of light receptors on the sensor. Within months they were back in the race.
However, late last year a remarkable thing happened. Canon launched the successor to the G10, their top compact camera. We were pleasantly surprised that the new G11 sported 4 million fewer pixels than the camera it replaced. The G10 had 14 megapixels, the G11 has 10. Why would they do this? The answer is "the Panasonic LX3".
One year earlier Panasonic launched their top compact with a ten megapixel sensor and a very short range Leica zoom lens. It immediately won the admiration of camera reviewers around the world. Its natural competitor was the Canon G10 which was declared to be inferior to the LX3, solely because of the image quality difference.
Canon reacted by hurrying the G11 (and its sister, the S90) onto the market with fewer pixels and the move paid off. Canon is back at the top of the compact camera heap.
Here's the paradox. Both Panasonic and Canon make lesser, cheaper cameras with more pixels. Canon squeezes 14 million receptors onto an area about the size of a pinky nail in some of its cheaper cameras. No doubt many shoppers find it hard to comprehend why more should cost less, because they assume that if less is more then more must be a great deal more than more.
Next week we will answer some FAQs about sensors and pixels to assist the confused shopper in dealing with the seduction of numbers.
*
Posted by terry at 07:22 AM | Comments (0)