Price: $900 with Pentax 18–55mm lens

A real photographic tool

The low-down: This 10.2 megapixel single lens reflex camera is fitted with a Pentax zoom lens with a 18–55mm range (approximately 27–82mm film equivalent). The camera/lens combination is small and light for a DSLR and well made. The lens is mechanically smooth with just the right friction in the zoom and focus rings. Image stabilisation is in-body by sensor shift. There is also dust reduction by sensor shake. The camera uses AA batteries and memory is by SD card. There is no body-top function display but the LCD layout is clear and easy to use. Some settings are also displayed in the viewfinder. There is no illuminated focus spot, which is a curious omission.

Like: The camera continues the Pentax style of no-nonsense SLRs. There are no gimmicky concessions to customers moving up from compact cameras. Every function is a genuine photographic tool. The Pentax kit lens is particularly fine. Image quality is exceptionally good, with one caveat.

Dislike: The camera has one serious flaw. JPEG images straight from the camera are unimpressive both in sharpness and in colour. We are at a loss to understand this because the RAW images are excellent. JPEG and RAW can be recorded simultaneously so in one sense it is not an issue, but it does mean that to get the best from the K-m you must be prepared to work with RAW files. If you use a Mac and iPhoto this will not even be a nuisance, but PC users will have to come to terms with RAW.

Verdict: If you can live with the RAW file system – and that, after all, is the way to get better images with any camera – then the Pentax is a fine camera. And the supplied Silkypix RAW converter is excellent. This is a low cost entry into the serious photographic world of the DSLR. It's a lot of camera for the money.

*

This morning Casa Imaging was enveloped in an attractive fog. Just over the road is a lake which looks soft and mysterious in the mist. Altogether a photographer's paradise.

Except that it was so cold. And the bed so warm. It takes more dedication than we can usually muster to leap out into the frosty morning and grab the camera and head for the lake.

And you can get the same finished effect without ever leaving the comfort of home. Just take the photos later on, when the sun has come up, and then apply a suitable Photoshop Action to the image.

Actions, for those who haven't encountered them, are to Photoshop what macros are to Word. They are little automated routines that you can create yourself or download from many places on the Internet.

For instance, we have created an Action that will, with a single click, resize an image to 800 pixels high (we let the width take care of itself) at 96dpi. This is an ideal size and resolution for emailing, with a little judicious tweaking of the JPEG compression.

If you've never created an Action then the best place to start is in the Photoshop Help section. Click on Help in the menu bar and type in “create action” and the step by step instructions pop up. It is exactly the same as making a macro in Word – first the recorder is started, the Action is given a name, then you step through the sequence of procedures until the effect is achieved and then stop the recorder.

But you don't need to do it all yourself. There are many clever and generous people who have created useful actions that they are prepared to give away free. Two good places to start looking for Actions are at www.atncentral.com or Adobe's own exchange site. Adobe requires registration and it's worth going to the bother.

The Action files have the extension .atn. When you run Photoshop make sure that the History/Action palette is visible and the available Actions are listed there. Click on the drop down menu button at the top right of the Palette and choose Load from the menu. Navigate to the downloaded file and select it. It will appear in the Actions list. Click on the one you want and then click on the Play arrow at the bottom of the palette.

Apart from those we have created ourselves the most used Actions on our system are Edgarian Blur and Filer's Frame Action. Edgarian Blur is a quick way of adding soft light glamour to a portrait and Filer's Frame makes an image with rounded corners that floats above a white background onto which it casts a shadow.

Not all pre-packaged Actions work well. Some are downright cranky, and the only way to sort the good from the bad is to try all those that have promising names. Amongst the duds there are many brilliant little automated routines that you won't be able to live without.

*

Price: $579

Just average

The low-down: This 12.2 megapixel camera is fitted with a Schneider branded zoom lens with a 24–240mm range. This is claimed to be the first 10X superzoom with a 24mm wide-angle. There is dual image stabilisation, optical and electronic. Construction quality is solid and ergonomics are good. The 75mm LCD screen has decent sharpness and brightness and is not bad in bright sunlight. There are few manual controls, but there is a Program mode as an alternative to automatic. There is an HDMI socket for connecting the camera to a high definition display, such as the Samsung television described in today's story. The 16:9 widescreen aspect ratio is selectable in camera.

Like: The camera is responsive. The lens, in spite of its extreme range, doesn't exhibit gross distortions – there is very slight barrel distortion at the wide end and more pronounced pincushion at the 240mm extreme. However, that extreme range comes at a price.

Dislike: Very few of the photos we took with this camera were sharp. This appears to be partly a problem with the lens. Like all such “super” zooms there is a trade-off between versatility and sharp focus, contrast and colour accuracy. Auto exposure and white balance were all over the place. But most distressing was the way that the camera handles – or doesn't handle – noise. The pixel density on this CCD is very high and noise (grain) is apparent at even the lowest ISO speeds. Attempts to reduce the noise blur fine detail. Movie quality is poor.

Verdict: Samsung have tried too hard to satisfy the customer who buys by numbers. Gosh! A 10X zoom – that has to be better than a 3X, doesn't it? And count the pixels – more than 12 million of the things. Terrific! And where will it all end? This camera has 43 million pixels on every square centimetre of sensor. The superb Nikon D700 has 1.4 million pixels per square centimetre of its sensor. Who do the camera companies think they are fooling? Everyone, apparently.

*

We have been converging at number 5. And if you don't know about convergence in the world of gadgetry then you have not been paying attention.

Convergence is the idea that all our techno toys should come together in one big central thing. TV, Internet, games, music, portable player, pay TV, home movies, still photography and computer should no longer come from discrete devices but should get together in one multi-function unit.

It's an interesting concept, but just thinking about the plethora of doodads that must be bought and mastered makes us go weak at the knees. However, we have been dipping a cautious toe in the convergence waters. We have been playing with a Samsung LCD/LED high definition television set. We can well believe that this splendid device could be the centre of a converged system.

First and foremost it is a fine television. Mrs Imaging thinks that it shows 3D pictures, but we have assured her that it just looks that way because the picture is so fine in all respects that it is like looking at the subject matter through clear glass.

Our interest in the Samsung is as a display device for still photographs and for movies made with still cameras, such as the Samsung WB550. We have reviewed the camera today and think it is no match for the television. It is beaten in both movie and still mode by the much better Panasonic TZ7 which comes with similar specifications.

However, we have nothing but praise for the Samsung television – well, almost nothing. The highest commendation that we can give the set is that, although it comes from South Korea, it can produce a European image with fine skin tones and subtle tonal gradations. Contrast, brightness, colour saturation, tint and sharpness are all adjustable, which is just as well because the defaults are a tad garish for our tastes.

There are four HDMI inputs for attaching high definition devices, such as a BluRay player. Then there are inputs for a computer and ethernet connections. Plus there are two USB ports. Digital (multi-channel) audio input is through an optical fibre connector.

We displayed still images as slide shows from both a USB stick and a computer. The results were sensationally good. A sound file can be included on the USB stick and cued as a soundtrack for the slide show. We would rate the Samsung as an outstanding display device for photographs.

There are a couple of design issues with the set. For instance, it is designed to be wall mounted, but if you do that you cannot reach the USB sockets at the back. They ought to be on the front panel. And the in-set sound quality is very poor. And we could have done with one less HDMI input and one more SCART or component AV socket. Apart from that we can say that we would like our future slide nights to be converged into a Samsung Series 7 TV.

*

Price: $299

We bought it!

The low-down: This printer/copier/scanner unit is an evolutionary upgrade of the ESP5. The big difference between the units is that the ESP7 has in-built wireless networking connectivity as well as USB and direct input from memory cards. There are now two paper trays rather than one, and this is an added convenience because A4 and postcard photo paper can both be loaded and ready. There are two ink cartridges, one black and one cyan/magenta/yellow plus an additional black. Inks are pigment and there is a final clear layer to eliminate “bronzing” – the colour shift effect that comes with pigment inks when held at a certain angle to the light. The scan and copy functions are useful but of ordinary speed and quality.

Like: The ESP7 uses the brilliant Kodak system of print adjustment based on bar codes printed on the backs of the different paper types and read by the printer. Output is consistently good to excellent, the variation in print quality being related to paper quality. Best results, which are outstanding, are achieved with Kodak's Ultra Premium High Gloss paper. Prints from this unit have been rated highly for fade resistance by Wilhelm Research laboratories.

Dislike: Paper handling is not always precise. We needed to tighten up the paper guides fairly often to stop the paper pulling through at an angle. And setup is finicky – read the instructions carefully and do not deviate from them one iota.

Verdict: The wireless networking capability makes this an ideal all-in-one unit for a home with a number of networked computers. We have now been able to set up the printer driver on a computer at the other end of the house and print at a distance. We like the whole system so much that we have bought one, and commendation does not come any higher.

*

Being insatiably curious and perpetually dissatisfied we are suckers for beta versions of software. And there is no more tempting beta than a new version of Windows, and Windows 7 is a whopper. We had to have it.

So how has it been? In a word, sweet.

Now we have four computers – a Mac running OS-X 10.5.7 and three PCs running Vista, Windows 7 and Windows XP. So we should be able to give the definitive answer to the existential question troubling our times: which computer system is best for processing digital photographs?

There is much ballyhoo from the Mac pixies about how they are better looking, better dressed and with smarter haircuts than the overweight Windows drongoes who make up 96 per cent of computer owners. They also brag about how much easier and more intuitive their machines are than PCs. Well, a moment's thought will tell you that this can't be so when you are using Photoshop, because whether on a Mac or a PC there is obviously not going to be any difference. Well, not much, and what difference there is favours Windows.

So let's forget the big Photoshop stuff and imagine someone who is in the market for a new computer to edit, store, print and share photos through Flickr! or Facebook. This customer wants to take the computer out of the box, plug it in and get going without having to buy any extra software. Which operating system is best?

Windows Vista includes a useless mini-application called Photo Gallery. The free program Picasa, from Google, is far superior to Photo Gallery.

Windows 7 comes with Windows Live Photo Gallery – they dream up snappy names at Microsoft – which is an improvement on the one that isn't Live. Let's call it LPG to save space. It can be downloaded free from Microsoft and in theory works with Vista and XP. We managed to get it going with XP but it stubbornly refuses to work with Vista and Microsoft don't want to know about it, in spite of the fact that people all over the world are having problems. If you can make it work LPG is OK, but it will not handle RAW files. It displays them but will not allow editing without first converting to JPEG or TIFF.

A new Mac comes with the latest version of iPhoto installed. It can also be bought as part of iLife 09 (including iMovie, iWeb and Garage Band) for $129 and works brilliantly with OS 10.5 and later. It loves RAW files, and for most people has all the editing functions you will ever need. It also has a nifty, if slightly unreliable, face recognition system that will scan your hard drive for photos of people and match their features to an identification tag – presumably a spin-off of the war on terror.

The verdict: Windows 7 is looking good, but is months from final release. In the meantime the Mac costs more but wins hands down.

*

This being the 200^th birthday of the great Charles Darwin, what better time to explore the mysteries of natural camera selection. Why do some customers buzz around the Canon counter while others make a bee-line for the Kodak shop? What primeval urge compels us to mate with this brand rather than that? Are responses to brand genetically programmed or are they learned? Knowing the answers to these vital questions may free us from self-delusion and enslavement to one particular company badge.

A couple of years ago we had an email from Anthony, a reader in Hong Kong, seeking advice on buying a camera. We gave him our usual line: if you already have lenses from a film SLR then it's easy, buy that brand again. On the other hand go by the rule: you get what you pay for. Price is as good as guide as any in the digital SLR market.

Anthony wrote back saying that was all very well, but there was no way that he would buy a Nikon. Everyone knows that Nikon owners are rude, aggressive, arrogant snobs. Canon owners, on the other hand, are sweet, warm and decent people. (It so happens that we own Nikon and Canon chez Imaging, which could mean something.)

We tried Anthony's theory on Steve Mills at Ted's Camera store and he wasn't convinced. “Camera brands are like cars,” Steve says. “If Dad owned Holdens and got a good run from them then there's no way the kids will buy Falcons.”

He reckons that the brand enthusiast who stands on his box to hector us about the superiority of his camera over all others is “anal”.

Our primitive attachment to brands can be powerful. Just the sight of the name and the company's colours can be a stimulant to buy. Take Kodak, for instance. What does George Eastman's made-up name and the yellow and red corporate colour scheme say to us?

Kimberley Langton, Brand Manager – Digital Still Cameras at Canon Australia, said recently: "Our research shows that the more we can strengthen the emotional attachment that consumers have with the Canon brand, the more compelling it is for them to invest in the range of Canon cameras...” Emotional attachment to a brand?

There is a theory amongst marketing experts that we have relationships with brands as we do with other humans. They speak to us and we respond with either affection or contempt.

According to a publication from the marketing school at one American university Kodak is loved by its loyal customers as a “down-to-earth, family oriented, genuine, old-fashioned and sincere” company. “The relationship might be similar to one that exists with a well-liked and respected member of the family.” Which almost certainly explains why Kodak does so well marketing its cameras to women. It always has, from the first Brownie with its patronising promise that it is so simple that even women and children can use it.

Kodak identified the wife/mother as the family photo chronicler and sold aggressively into that market and has had great success capitalising on the brand perception.

At the other end of the brand personality scale is the Leica. All Leica compact cameras are, in reality, Panasonic cameras, but with the addition of the little red badge and a huge difference in price. The Leica D-Lux 4 is priced almost exactly double the price of the identical Panasonic LX-3. How can this be? Leica devotees reckon that the cameras are not identical because the famous German company has sprinkled some magic fairy dust on the sensor and transformed them from mundane Asian gadgets into optical/mechanical masterpieces of Teutonic craftsmanship. Neither Panasonic nor Leica is saying anything.

To return to our American guide to understanding brand loyalty, the Leica brand is irresistible, regardless of price, to the “pretentious, wealthy, condescending sophisticates. For some, this would be BMW, Mercedes, or Lexus (with gold trim) as opposed to the Mazda MX5 or the VW Golf. The relationship could be similar to one with a powerful boss or a rich relative.”

Sony, Panasonic and Samsung are all well-known brands in microwaves and televisions that have come late to the digital still camera business. Although Sony and Panasonic have a reputation in the video camera field, both professional and domestic, they do not have the reputation built on a history in optics like Canon, Nikon and Olympus. Panasonic has only been making digital still cameras for seven years and is already an outstanding player in the compact camera market.

Steve Mills from Ted's says that Sony is a brand to which customers feel a strong loyalty and they reward the company for giving past satisfaction by sticking with them in the new field of digital cameras. But there is something interesting about the johnny-come-latelys in the business – they seem to lack just the last degree of confidence in their own product and their customer's fidelity.

Zeiss, Leica and Schneider, companies that do not themselves make digital cameras for the masses, now have their names engraved on the lenses of Sony, Panasonic and Samsung cameras. (Kodak also use the Schneider brand, with more justification. Schneider is a traditional supplier of lenses to Kodak for their better film cameras since the early thirties.) Samsung has an association with Pentax – some of their cameras are virtually identical – but clearly thinks there is more market appeal in the German brand of Jos. Schneider of Kreuznach than the Pentax optical brand of Takumar.

It is a moot point, and also probably a company secret, just how much the venerable German optics companies contribute to the Japanese and Korean cameras made in China. Perhaps not much more than the name itself. Is the minor snob appeal or technical reassurance of the German brand an enticement to customers? Sony obviously thinks so, and we should never underestimate the status symbolism that attaches to all brands German. A Lexus is good, but it doesn't sport that three-pointed star.

To launch itself into the DSLR business Sony bought the camera division of Konica Minolta, which would have included the Rokkor lens division. These are fine lenses, and legacy Rokkor lenses from Minolta cameras fit Sony DSLRs, so why does Sony brand its premium lenses Zeiss and not Rokkor?

Some years ago we interviewed the president of Hasselblad in his office in Gothenburg. We expressed some amazement that his small, highly specialised company managed to survive the Japanese destruction of the European camera business. He said it was thanks to the Japanese that the company had survived. The snob appeal of Hasselblad is irresistible to well-heeled Japanese (and American) camera buffs and sales in Japan kept the Swedish company afloat.

Perhaps that explains why Sony thinks Zeiss is a more attractive name than Rokkor to the Japanese buying public.

At a launch of a range of Olympus compact cameras last year the assembled journalists were told that the company research showed that for the average buyer the most important feature of a camera is the number of pixels. More is better!

And after pixels comes style. Appearance is very important, particularly to the young female customer. Japanese companies have recognised this factor for years, and even came up with a word for it, “techno jewellery”. If you've ever wondered why you can buy a pink camera that looks like a powder compact, wonder no longer. There is a market for it.

Sony produces two distinct ranges of compact cameras – the W range that looks like a real camera ought to look and the T range that looks like, well, jewellery. The T series, which comes in six colours, is labelled: “Designed to impress”. The W series boasts “everyday features and functions”. What well-dressed girl would be seen dead with that?

Are there rational customers who are impervious to the emotional attachments to one brand and aversion to another? According to the GfK ConsumerScope Imaging survey 60 per cent of customers put “value for money” as the top purchasing criterion, not pixels. But how do the customers know?

J D Power and Associates, in a report on digital camera buying two years ago wrote: “Consumers are increasingly researching product information and third-party, independent reviews prior to purchasing their camera as a means of finding the one that meets their specific needs. Sixty-three percent of consumers utilise the Internet as a source of information – nearly twice the incidence of using information found in consumer product publications (33%). Recommendations from family and friends (33%) and the salesperson's opinion (27%) are nearly on equal footing as resources for product information...Ninety-one percent of all digital camera buyers report doing some type of research prior to purchasing a new camera." Which, of course, includes reading reviews in Livewire.

*

DEAR ANTHONY...

To find out which camera brand matches your personality go to http://tinyurl.com/q6f5tj and take the quiz.

“If you are a Nikonian you are a true professional. Forever the perfectionist who always wants the most from the equipment. You see the world in tiny details and a day job as 'pixel peeper' would probably be a dream come true.

“If you're the archetype Canonite you're a sucker for high performance, big lenses and fast money. Never mind what the brand is called, you know what you need and go for it. Your knowledge of photography is immense, You probably know more than all the text books and like to show it.”

Now who's the arrogant one?

*

Price: $280

Nikon? Hmmmm?

The low-down: This 10 megapixel camera has a 38–136mm (film equivalent) lens. It is not image stabilised. The large (75mm) LCD screen is of poor resolution. There are very few user controls, Nikon promises “shooting without worrying about any settings.” Amongst the mode settings is one for Food! The camera operates on AA batteries, so factor in the price of a pair of Ni-MH batteries and charger. There is a small internal memory and it uses SD cards for storage.

Like: When all the conditions are right the pictures are surprisingly good. Exposure and focus are generally reliable. We like rechargeable AA batteries in compacts, but they are not supplied so must be added to the advertised purchase price of the camera.

Dislike: The LCD is the worst we have ever seen on any camera. Consider this: it is the same size as the LCD on the Nikon D300, but it has only one quarter the number of pixels. The result is that, while it is large, the images on it are blurry with no definition or contrast. It is impossible to tell by reference to a review on the LCD if you have taken a decent picture. You won't know until you get back to the computer what you have on the memory card. And the screen is useless as a viewfinder in sunlight.

Verdict: Nikon is one of the proudest names in the camera business, with a range of DSLRs second to none. So we are perplexed. The Coolpix L20 is not a camera to enhance their reputation. It feels insubstantial and cheap. It is lacking in features, such as image stabilisation, that other makers fit into their cheaper cameras. And the wretched LCD makes it almost unusable. For a few dollars more buy the lovely little Canon Ixus 80is.

*

One of the fastest growing sections of the digital camera market is the so-called entry level digital single lens reflex. And $1600 seems to be some sort of sweet spot in the price range at which people trade up from a compact to a DSLR.

Canon and Nikon have both launched new cameras into this part of the market. Canon's new EOS 500D, and Nikon's D5000, distinguish themselves from entry level predecessors by having a high definition movie function of limited usefulness. We are yet to be convinced that a DSLR is the ideal gadget for shooting family movies. You are forced back onto manual focus and that pretty much means that you must stick with stationary subjects.

The Canon is a 15 megapixel camera and the Nikon makes do with 12.3. In real world terms there is no difference in image quality. Both are good.

Construction of both cameras is heavily plastic, both in the bodies and in the kit lenses. Both companies offer two image stabilised kit lenses covering ranges from 18-55mm and 55-200 in the case of the Nikon and 55-250 from Canon. None of the lenses gives stellar performance, the best being the shorter Nikon and the least satisfactory is the long Canon. The Nikons are slow to focus and neither brand has really effective image stabilisation.

The Nikon has a swivelling LCD and the Canon has a larger fixed screen. Both have relatively cramped and dim viewfinders. They are both light and small.

In use the two cameras are similar, being mechanically gritty and noisy and not coming up to the luxurious feel that we associate with the brands. They feel that they are made down to a price. We fitted each of them with better lenses from our Canon and Nikkor optics and then they performed well, producing consistently excellent pictures. The moral of this story is, buy the camera body but spend a little more for better lenses.

The D5000 is another camera from Nikon that doesn't have an in-body auto-focus drive, which means that any additional lens that is bought must have the auto-focus mechanism built in. This excludes a large number of excellent legacy Nikkor lenses and it also raises a question about the value-for-money of the D5000. Good lenses will be expensive.

We have been comparing camera prices on the web site of a national chain of camera shops. Both the new cameras sell for $1600 with the shorter lens, but the incomparably superior Nikon D90 with the same lens is only $200 more. The best always trumps the good.

From the same shop the gorgeous, but superseded, Canon EOS 40D with a better lens, is also $1800. Just a few months ago this superb combination cost 50 per cent more.

And while you're shopping look at the Pentax K20D and the Olympus E30, both offering more to the serious amateur than either of the new cameras. Bottom line: don't fall for the newer is better argument.

Sample image from the Canon EOS 500D—click image to see a larger version

*

Price: $380

Petite and sweet

The low-down: This 12.2 megapixel camera has a 35–105mm (film equivalent) lens. It is not image stabilised. The large (75mm) LCD screen is of average resolution and useless in sunlight. Dimensions are tiny with a face area equal to a credit card and a mere 14.2mm thick. It will fit any pocket without a bulge. Surface is attractive brushed metal. Ergonomics are poor with some essential controls, such as exposure compensation, buried in two layers of menu. There is no printed manual and the “quick start” manual is useless.

Like: The image quality is generally very good, when all the conditions come together precisely. Focus is fast and accurate. Resolution is good. At ISO200 images are very good. Surprisingly it is even possible to get acceptably clean images at ISO speeds up to 800. And Samsung is honest – when ISO800 is selected in the menu a notice pops up warning of probable increase in image noise (grain).

Dislike: Both auto exposure and auto white balance are erratic. Generally the camera over exposes by at least one stop. And the auto white balance, which is acceptable most of the time, can be easily upset, resulting in some weird colours. The absence of a proper printed manual is inexcusable. And as with all compact cameras that rely on the LCD as a viewfinder you won't see anything in bright sunlight. Sadly the optical viewfinder is now a rare feature on compact cameras.

Verdict: The appeal of this camera is its small size and attractive appearance. It is a true go-anywhere camera which, used intelligently, delivers very good results. Needless to say most owners will put it into Smart Auto mode and leave it there, which is a pity. The ST50 deserves more discriminating use. It is not cheap and is up against stiff competition from Canon, Sony and Panasonic in this price range.

*

It seems that we are not alone in suffering the problem of the disappearing car in the enormous car park. And there is a solution. Why do you think God gave us digital cameras? If we had had the little Samsung ST50 (reviewed here) in our pocket we could have taken several location photos of the car in situ, as it were, and used the instantly retrievable pictures to find it again.

That tip comes from photojojo.com, a chap who has given this matter some thought. Right at the top of his list of twelve ways to use your camera as a tool, he writes: “Mark Your Parking Spot. Before you head out on a long trip, don’t bother rooting around for a pen to write down your parking space number. Take a photo of your parking spot so you can find it again when you come back.” Now he tells us!

Photojojo also uses his camera as a printer. He has some information on a computer screen, like a map or an address or phone number, and there's no printer handy – no sweat. Take a picture and you've got the information with you wherever you go.

The same thing applies to shopping lists. You've found a new recipe with the ingredients list on the page there in front of you. Don't bother to write it all out by hand. Just take a picture and consult your camera when you get to the grocers.

Obviously all this advice also applies to cameras in phones. They are particularly useful when (and this has happened to the Imagings on more that one occasion) Grandma has found a dress that she thinks would suit one of the granddaughters, but she needs parental approval. Imaging holds up the dress, Mrs Imaging takes the photo, and then sends it to parent for approval. Reply comes back at the speed of light.

Photojojo is one of those chaps who takes things apart and then can't get them all back together again without having a piece of two left over. He's solved the problem by taking photos of every step in the disassembling process. Re-assembly is then a doddle.

Over at cockeyed.com there is one clever suggestion – use your camera to identify itself. Take a photo of a sign that says “This camera is the property of Imaging. Please phone... Or email...” Then lock that image on the memory card so that it is never erased. Then any honest person finding the camera and taking a peek at the pictures will find the identifier and immediately get in touch. Well, that's the theory.

*

Price: $770

Good, but very expensive

The low-down: This 10.1 megapixel camera has a 25–300mm (film equivalent) Leica-branded, optically stabilised lens. The large (75mm) LCD screen is of decent resolution and useful even in sunlight. It takes face detection to a new level – it “recognises” people! Construction is good and all controls work well, although it is too easy to inadvertently move the mode selection dial. There is a reasonable degree of user control, although we don't like the fact that we have to move a switch between two positions to go from review mode to shooting. This camera is a sort of hybrid, working both as a still camera and a videocam that will record in a high definition format.

Like: The still image quality is outstanding, with excellent colour, sharp focus and effective image stabilisation. Even at the full, remarkable, 300mm extension images are sharp. Video quality is good, even if it is not broadcast quality. Remember that you need a high capacity SD card if you intend to shoot minutes rather than seconds of video. Naturally Panasonic have optimised the camera's connections to work with their Viera TV range, but we edited video in Adobe Premier Elements and got good playback on a standard definition wide-screen TV. The TZ7 takes video to a new level of refinement for a still camera.

Dislike: The price puts the camera up against some impressive entry level DSLRs, any one of which will produce better images, albeit without the benefit of portability and the video mode.

Verdict: This is a very good camera. Indeed it is one of the best compacts, as it should be at the price. Panasonic seem to have dealt with the noise problem that has plagued their compacts in the past. Images are now clean and sharp, at least up to ISO200, and quite acceptable at ISO400. Highly recommended.

*

This is a photo taken with the Panasonic TZ7, not of the TZ7. Do not do this to your TZ7!

*

The famous Gorillapod — the go-anywhere steadycam.

With a little bit of luck we could just be experiencing a real winter. We don't want to say this out too loudly for fear that we will discourage the rain clouds, but let's assume the best, that for the first time in ten years we are going to have a wet, cold winter season. Bliss! But mostly indoor bliss.

How will we fill the time indoors, photographically speaking? Well, we could teach the dog to take photographs. Not photographs of the dog, photographs by the dog.

Kodak has a helpful video on their podcast web site showing how to get Rover into the photography hobby. Jenny Cisney, chief blogger at Kodak, was inspired to get her dog taking photographs by the possibilities presented by the Gorillapod.

The Gorillapod, it is a versatile tripod with bendy legs. It can be used as a flexible three legged conventional tripod or it can be wrapped around any convenient object, such as a tree, a fence post or a dog's neck. Jenny has attached a compact camera to her dog using the Gorillapod as a collar. Then she sets the self-timer and lets the mutt loose. He runs around sniffing here and there as dogs are wont to do and bingo, after ten or twenty seconds the camera fires and he's taken a digital doggy pic.

A commenter on Ms Cisney's blog has suggested a refinement – set the camera on video mode and get a moving dog's eye view of the world.

While looking at Kodak's podcasts have a look at Photo bookmarks. It's another instructional video that has a germ of a good idea for keeping the children amused indoors on a wet afternoon. It is all about making bookmarks from photographs, but it goes beyond simply printing long thin photos and laminating them (although that is a good idea, too).

The Kodak Pro Imaging podcast category has plenty of good ideas for all photographers. The reader who sent us a nasty email berating us for our digital enthusiasm, when everyone knows that only silver-based photography is the genuine art form, will find much to confirm his prejudices in the John Sexton video.

Mr Sexton learned his skills from the great Ansel Adams and, as he says in his eloquent praise of black and white film photography: “I still like the magic of the silver process.” He even likes the uncertainty of not knowing how well he has done his job on location until he gets back to the darkroom and develops his film. He reckons that “the look of film is different from images digitally generated, just as cinematography film is different from video.”

He shows examples of his work in a good quality podcast that is down loadable for replay on portable MP3 devices. This podcast is an eleven minute tutorial which might inspire digital photographers to set their cameras to monochrome, even if it isn't the same as film.

*

THIS WEEK we have been testing the new Panasonic Lumix TZ7. A full review will be posted here on Thursday.

In the meantime we took the camera to the Zoo to try out its AVCHD [that is high definition video] capabilities. We were impressed. It’s impossible to give a real idea of what the camera can do on this blog site, but this little clip gives some indication of the accuracy of focus and exposure and shows the remarkable resolution of the video mode. The TZ7 takes the “hybrid” concept onto a new plane.

It does mean that the user will need a large memory card to take advantage of the video capabilities. And if travelling it would be as well to have some sort of mass portable storage to unload the card at the end of the day.

*

Price: US$119, from www.photoacute.com

Clever software

The low-down: This image manipulation program performs several specialised functions. It will merge a set of images into a single high dynamic range photograph, extending the detail visible in shadows and highlights; it will merge a set of photos taken at different focus points to produce one image that is sharp, front to back; and it will merge four or more identical images to produce one with double the resolution of the camera sensor.

Like: The high dynamic range (HDR) function works the same as it does in Photoshop or Photomatix. A bracket of three or more photos, identical except for exposures, is merged into one image with a wide tonal range. There is no tone mapping built into PhotoAcute, so tones must be adjusted in a program such as Photoshop. To increase the depth of field a set of photos is taken with the camera manually focused at different points in the subject. The camera is set to manual exposure and manual focus and not moved between exposures. The set is then merged and processed in the software. To double the camera's resolution a set of four photos, taken with the camera tripod mounted, is merged to produce one high resolution, noise-free image.

Verdict: You may wonder who this application is intended for. Well, anyone who regularly takes catalogue shots of small appliances, jewellery, flowers and so on will find the depth of field expander amazing. We were astonished by its ability to take a group of photos in which there is movement between individual shots and still merge them into a pin-sharp image. And the resolution doubling is a boon when enlarging digital images without introducing unwanted pixellation (the breakup of the image into small squares). The high resolution pictures are eye-popping. For HDR there are other programs that do the job, although we thought that PhotoAcute did a better job of lining up the composite images than some. There is a trial download.

*