I pose this question for a couple of reasons: The ISO scale is 1) misleading and 2) misunderstood. I would be surprised if manufacturers pushed to adopt a new scale though. More is better, right? If brand X can shoot at ISO 6400 and Brand Y can shoot at ISO 12,800, then Brand Y must be, like, 6400 times better or something. Right? Nope it’s only 1 stop. The ISO scale was developed in the film days and as far as I’m aware, the fastest film available (other than maybe some specialized scientific films) was Kodak T Max at 3200. Digital sensors have far exceeded that today.

Aaron Johnson's What the Duck http://www.whattheduck.net/

While not exactly on point, I think the cartoon sums up part of what I feel is a misleading issue. The cartoon does make light of the technical understanding of ISO. Have you ever read the WiKi article on that subject? Even my eyes glaze over. I am willing to bet that a lot of shooters (I’m guilty of this) have set the camera at ISO 4000, thinking they gained a lot of sensitivity but not as much noise as 6400 gives them. Well not really. That’s only 1/3 of a stop and they really gained very little in shutter speed, just lost some detail and increased the noise a bit. The 1/3 boost in shutter speed certainly isn’t going to make much difference in freezing the action in low light. Other choices, a tripod, faster aperture, adding a flash or more light etc, shot at a lower ISO, would create much better photos in many situations.

From here on I’ll drop the ISO part, assuming you know what I’m talking about.

The scale makes no sense with today’s sensors and the ones coming in the future. We already have cameras that can shoot above 100,000. Who knows where they will be 2,3, 4+ years from now. Shooters at all levels of experience may not understand the sensitivity steps, make the wrong choice in a hurry, or get a little hoodwinked at how much extra latitude you get from 6400 to 12,800 because the number sounds so much bigger than it really is. Think in terms of salary: If you make $51,200 a year and the boss offers you a new job at $102,400, that’s a huge leap. Your entire life just changed. Well that’s how we think; we don’t see that it’s just one stop faster.

The Nikon D3s can shoot at ISO102,400 which one site loudly proclaimed has, 'Night Vision' and 'ISO 102,400. Yeah, that's a six-digit ISO.'

Is one full stop a big deal? Sure it is, shooters go nuts to buy a lens that is 1 stop faster. Also, the scale is exponential. So 200 is twice as sensitive as 100 and 400 is 4 times as sensitive as 100. In terms of what you can do with that 1 stop, It means you could shoot at 1/60th at 1600 and 1/125th at 3200 and get the same exposure results. That could be the difference between stopping the action and not while taking family photos indoors. In my thinking though, if the scale was more straightforward, people would understand better what they gained when going from 3200 to 6400. Sometimes, that one stop and added noise might not be worth the trade-off for a faster shutter speed.

I’d suggest a new scale that really reflects the steps and gain as you turn up the dial. Plus the smaller numbers would be much easier to display in the viewfinder. This way, you can better understand the advantage and relationship with the other 2 parameters, shutter speed and aperture. This would really benefit new buyers, people who have never shot film or who moved from a point and shoot to a DSLR for the first time and never really considered ISO before.

My hope is that some day, sensors will natively go below 100. I really miss how incredible Kodachrome 25 was. So I suggest the scale start at 1 which would equal 100 now and consider the possibility of even lower sensitivities. Then if we get ISO’s below 1 (100) the scale would show a negative. Further, the scale would need to be similar to the aperture scale. for half and 1/3 settings.

Maybe something like this, reflecting 1/3 and 1/2 adjustments:
ISO 12, 25, 50, 64, 80, 100 = -2, -1, 0, 0.3, 0.7, 1.0
ISO 100-200 = 1.0, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, 2.0
ISO 200-400 = 2.0, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.0
ISO 400-800 = 3.0, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 4.0
ISO 800-1600 = 4.0, 4.3, 4.5, 4.7, 5.0

So then your basic scale is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. If 100 = 1, then 102,400 would equal 10. We’ll call it the EtL scale. Simple and straightforward. Fractional steps would directly correspond to 1/2 or 1/3 step adjustments to your shutter speeds. I think a much less confusing and more logical way to display your shooting information in the viewfinder. You instantly realize that you’ve only gained a stop and may be better to open the lens up a stop, or decrease the shutter speed when you can, to get a cleaner image.

Cheers and good shooting. –Peter Zack

Vote for us by clicking on the button below!

No related posts.

Used via CC through FreeFoto.com.

In every photography conversation that takes place anywhere in the World, the subject will eventually come up. Someone will innocently ask: Do you shoot RAW or JPEG? And a friendly conversation turns into an ugly bloodbath, ending with photographers spinning their cameras over their heads held by the strap, as modern-day photographic flails, mouths frothing, shrieks of hate filling the air as they attack one another in defence of their chosen file format. It’s not coincidence that ‘RAW’ is ‘WAR’ spelled backwards.

It needn’t be this way. I believe photographers of all races, colours, creed and shooting format can coexist and live together, in peace. Seriously, I do.

So what’s the big problem? Let me begin with the negative things each faction says about the other.

What the JPEG Zealots Say

RAW shooters are pussies who don’t know the first thing about photography, if they did, they wouldn’t have to use the crutch of RAW because they’d get their exposures right at the time they took the picture. JPEGs capture the real scene in front of the camera without any bias from the photographer. Real professionals only shoot JPEG.

What the RAW Zealots Say

JPEG shooters are amateurs who don’t know how to extract the maximum IQ from a digital file and are too lazy to learn how to use Photoshop. Why would they even buy a DSLR if they’re going to shoot JPEG? They’d be better off just shooting with a P&S. Real professionals only shoot RAW.

Who Is Right?

Neither! Or both, depending how you look at it. Let’s examine the pros of each format.

• Pros of JPEG:
  • File sizes are smaller by a huge percent.
  • No time is wasted in front of the computer doing postprocessing, so you can actually spend more time taking pictures.
  • You can shoot many more photos in continuous shooting mode because the files get written to the memory card quickly due to their smaller size. This small size also means you don’t need huge memory cards or hard drives to store your photos in. Oh, and uploading images from the memory card to a computer or over the internet is faster
  • Once you find the camera settings that you like, all your photos will have your look and you’ll never have to worry about settings again.
• Pros of RAW:
  • You retain all the information captured by your camera sensor allowing you to make adjustments in postprocessing without losing IQ (or with minimal loss).
  • Adjustments you make in postprocessing are non-destructive.
  • You can postprocess a picture in many different ways and keep each version.
  • Ansel Adams would’ve shot RAW.

I’m sure zealots in each band can come up with more pros, but in essence they reduce to this: If you shoot JPEG you get smaller files (with all the associated benefits) and you spend less time in front of the computer and more out shooting; if you shoot RAW you have a file that offers a lot more latitude for being manipulated in postprocessing. And that’s it. Really, it is.

The thing about pros shooting only JPEG or RAW is rubbish—pros shoot whatever is most convenient for them. Sports shooters and journalists shoot mainly JPEG because they need to get their photographs uploaded to their agencies or newspapers as soon and quickly as possible. They don’t have time to upload 10-20MB files, not when they have a few hundred files to transmit; and they certainly don’t have time to postprocess the images. If any postprocessing needs to be done to the particular photos that will be published, it’s usually a small bump in contrast or levels adjustment, which a JPEG should be able to handle. If you’re talking landscape photography, then chances are those photographers will be shooting RAW. Landscape photographs routinely present challenging situations where parts of the photograph need to be lightened, while others need to be darkened; maybe ugly power-lines need to be erased and the tone of the image be warmed up (or cooled down) to fit in better with the emotional content of the scene.

That said, there will be sports photographers that shoot RAW and landscape photographers that shoot JPEG. JPEG and RAW are more than just file formats—they’re tools. Good artists use tools to their advantage and start off by choosing the appropriate ones; remember that.

What Format Should I Shoot?

The choice is easier than you think:

• Shoot RAW if you enjoy postprocessing or you feel the subjects you shoot are too complex from a dynamic range perspective and/or the camera cannot capture the scenes you shoot as you see them. If you shoot B&W and want to do more than just press the monochrome button, then RAW is probably the best option. If you are shooting under tough lighting conditions (and pressed for time) and are not sure the camera will meter correctly, shoot RAW to give yourself some leeway if you need to adjust a shot in postproduction.
• Shoot JPEG if you don’t enjoy postprocessing and have your camera set up such that the photos that come straight out of it are to your liking. If you are strapped for space on your computer, shooting JPEG will allow you to store many more files, and you can also fit more images on each memory card when you’re out shooting. Many people are not computer savvy and would like to stay as far away as possible from a laptop—there’s nothing wrong with that, and these people are one of the reasons engineers spent so long programming the JPEG engine in those cameras.

Whatever you choose, don’t consider it a decision for life. There may be shooting conditions when one or the other is better, and a wise photographer will change format if the situation requires it. Be at the mercy of the Photograph, not at the whim of your idiosyncrasies.

Most of all, dear reader, don’t think you have The Answer; don’t diminish your fellow photographers if they don’t shoot the same format as you. Each of us has different needs and tastes; we’re all individuals; but maybe more importantly: We don’t need another war.

Related posts:

1. 15 Lies about Photography
2. Landscape Phtography in the Dark
3. Justifying 15 Lies about Photography

When I reviewed the Olympus E-PL1 I didn’t pay much attention to its video capabilities, I only used it to make sure it worked. Yesterday my wife said I just saw a commercial on TV for an Olympus Pen, didn’t you just have one of those? I did a double take on her and said are you kidding me!? I went online to find this commercial, and not only did I find it, but it turns out it was actually shot with an E-PL1. How cool is that?

Olympus must be getting serious if they’re spending big bucks on TV commercials for their Digital Pen series. This might also be the first TV commercial for a micro 4/3 camera ever. It’s a cute commercial, too. Make sure you watch it in HD…what’s the point of it being shot in HD otherwise?

Related posts:

1. Shooting Weddings Part 3 – Choosing a Client
2. Shooting Macros Section 3 – The Math
3. Shooting Sunrises and Sunsets.

I have a Canadian friend who works in the Photography equipment business; he’s married to a good friend of mine from college, and while we’ve only met twice in person, we speak on the phone every now and again and exchange e-mails regularly. He frequently e-mails me news about upcoming products, but because he deals mostly with medium and large format photography, I don’t make use of this information because we’re not really concerned with that market on EtL. In any case, he’s generally been right about any predictions he’s made, which is why I did a double take when he sent me these photographs on yesterday.

About a week earlier he told me he’d heard comments through a German colleague that Leica were planning on releasing a new camera sometime in April. We both chuckled at the idea, but wondered if the R10 (the fabled Leica DSLR that never came) had finally been developed and was ready to launch. That’s not what these photos show, and not what my friend told me he’d found out through underground radio.

It seems Leica have struck a deal with a Japanese manufacturing company (Cosina came to my mind immediately) to have a line of cameras factory built, unlike current Leicas which are assembled by hand at one of their 3 facilities (in Canada, Portugal and Germany). He knows nothing about the specs for this new camera, but the fact that its called A9 would seem to link it to the M9, and externally they seem alike. What he does know is that Leica Canada has created a new product number and priced it at $3,000; this he heard from a Leica Canada contact of his who would reveal nothing else.

So that’s all we have to go on right now. My theory (and this is all pure speculation until we see an official announcement from Leica) is that Leica has come to the realisation that its current market model of high-priced cameras selling in small quantities is not going to get them through the global recession. Manufacturing cameras in series at Asian factories could lower production costs significantly, while keeping per-unit sales profit roughly the same; because the number of units sold would likely skyrocket, Leica’s total profit would be very generous. If the A9 really is just an M9 “made in Vietnam”, and they sell them for $3,000, even the best factory in the World won’t be able to build them fast enough. Even if the A9 is an APS-C version of the M9, it’s still a great price for a digital rangefinder and bound to be popular.

At some point this month we hope to find out the truth. For now, here are the two photos he sent me yesterday.

Related posts:

1. More Small Cameras: Leica X1 Field Report at Luminous Landscape
2. Leica to Branch Out into New Digital Venture
3. Nokia Releases Their First Camera…with a Phone Attached: The N86

Press release image from Hoya Corp of the new Pentax 645D.
(Click for beautiful size.)

The new Pentax 645D is finally here, having just been officially introduced by Pentax. For the serious Pro (landscape, outdoor, portrait, fashion, etc.) shooter, this might be a game changer. That is, if they can get their hands on one. Pentax is initially only offering this model to the Japanese market and it remains to be seen what the plans are for the European, North American and worldwide markets.*

So Why a Game Changer?
It might just be for two big reasons:

• Features:
  • Backward lens compatibility, a feature that has kept many Pentax shooters very happy over the years, is a fundamental part of this design. The earlier 645 series film cameras were quite popular by medium format standards and there’s a very good selection of used lenses around. It’s nice to see a manufacturer respect that a photographer may have a heavy investment in glass and wants to just upgrade the body.
  • Another simple little feature I personally like is the mirror lock-up. It’s a dial on the side of the prism housing you just turn to lock up the mirror. Not having to go into a menu for a feature that will be used a lot while shooting landscapes is a great idea. Many will shoot this camera on a tripod and lock up the mirror to take each shot.
  • Relatively high flash sync of 1/125th compared to earlier film versions (although the Hasselblad and Mamiya competitors do have higher sync speeds).
  • Weather sealed and cold-proof body for the landscape and outdoor photographer.
  • Dual card slots, which given the 40MP sensor is a great idea.
  • Again for the landscape shooter, a built-in HDR function for those scenes with dark foreground and bright skies.
• Price: The competition at this tier are Hasselblad’s H3DII-39 and Mamiya’s DM40 MF cameras. They are similarly featured yet priced more than double the Pentax 645D’s MRSP of USD $9,500 (direct conversion from Japanese price in Yen). This camera isn’t that much more than the top full-frame 35mm Digital bodies from Canon and Nikon.

Pentax 645D Rear View.
(Click for beautiful size.)

Introduced along with the new body is the new weather sealed PENTAX D-FA 645 55mm F2.8 AL, which is equivalent to 43.5mm in the 35mm (full-frame) format.

This won’t be for the sports shooter (medium format cameras rarely are) but for the pro who’s looking at the top end 35mm format digital bodies and shoots subjects where a high frame rate isn’t a concern—they will be giving some serious consideration to this camera.

You can read the entire press release here: Pentax announces 645D, and the new SMC PENTAX-D FA 645 55mmF2.8 AL[IF] SDM AW. You can see some photos of the 645D at the 2010 CP+ trade show in Japan. Here is an interesting interview with Pentax Product Planning executive Yasuyuki Maekawa.

Now time to break open that piggy bank…

A game changer? The jury is out at the moment and time will tell.

Cheers and good shooting.
–Peter Zack

Some more images from the 2010 CP+ trade show in Japan
©DigitalCamera.jp

* Recording capacity shows approximate number of shots recorded during CIPA-compliant testing. Actual performance may vary depending on operating conditions.

• PENTAX, 645D, and smc PENTAX are trademarks of HOYA CORPORATION.
• PENTAX Digital Camera Utility and SDM are trademarks of HOYA CORPORATION.
• This product supports PRINT Image Matching III. PRINT Image Matching enabled digital still cameras, printers and software help photographers to produce images more faithful to their intentions. Some functions are not available on printers that are not PRINT Image Matching III compliant.

  Copyright 2001 Seiko Epson Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
  Print Image Matching is a trademark of Seiko Epson Corporation.
  The PRINT Image Matching logo is a trademark of Seiko Epson Corporation.

• HDMI, the HDMI Logo and High-Definition Multimedia Interface are trademarks or registered trademarks of HDMI Licensing LLC.
• All other brands or product names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies.
• Designs and specifications are subjects to change without notice.

*initially I had posted that there were only going to be 200 units available [in the first product run] and the source of that information appears to be incorrect. There does not seem to be any firm numbers published as to how many of these will be available per month or how many is planned for the Japanese market. Sorry for any confusion this incorrect statement may have caused. Peter Zack

Related posts:

1. Review – Pentax K-x Part 2: Features, Menus, Ergonomics
2. Review – Pentax K-x Part 1: First Look
3. Review – Pentax K-x Part 3: Conclusions

It’s that time of year again. Winter is in full swing in the Northern Hemisphere, while the Southern Hemisphere is still rejoicing in Summer, but this goes unnoticed to Photography geeks everywhere as they stay indoors, glued to their computer screens refreshing DPReview’s new PMA product page and reading all the gossip coming from the PMA 2010 (Photo Marketing Association) convention, held in Anaheim, California. This year was a bit lacklustre as some major players decided not to attend (or pulled out at the last moment)—Canon, Pentax and Leica were some of these players (booooo). Still, some good stuff was announced by other manufacturers, and following is my own personal selection of the tastiest from the lot.

Sigma

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 HSM
(Photo pinched from DP Review)

There’s a reason Sigma is the top 3^rd party lens supplier in the business. Actually, there are many reasons, but one of them is their wide selection of lenses, which is some areas surpasses that of the big camera makers. But I always found there was one conspicuous lens gap in Sigma’s line-up: The classic fast 85mm portrait lens. It’s not that Sigma is against primes (they have a fisheye, 3 ultra wides, 2 standards, 4 macros, numerous mega telephotos…), so I never understood why they never issued the most sought after prime for any photographer who likes fast lenses, the holy grail of portrait photography: The 85mm f/1.4. I even wrote them a couple of years ago asking about it and they told me they had no plans for one. But that was then. Some bright executive saw the light and decided it was time, and thus it came to be that at the 2010 PMA Sigma finally announced their 85mm f/1.4, to be available in Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony and Sigma mounts (sorry 4/3!). Sigma Chief Operating Officer, Kazuto Yamaki, said of this lens:

It’s similar in concept to the 50mm f/1.4—it’s bigger, heavier and more expensive than OEM lenses but achieves higher performance. We’ve made this for professional and advance amateur photographers, we’ve tried to achieve better performance [than the OEM equivalents], particularly when using fully open apertures on the latest DSLRs.

Translation: It’s not going to be cheap. My guess is no less than US$700. But, if it’s sharp wide open and as well built as Sigma’s EX lines tends to be, this would be one of those lenses you will use forever, so its cost would be easily justified. I will try to get my hands on one of these when they hit stores and publish a review for you guys.

Sigma also announced an optically reformulated 70-200mm f/2.8 that now includes HSM focusing. Previous incarnations of this lens have been a breadwinner for Sigma as they’ve provided great build and IQ at affordable prices. The current model, the first to incorporate HSM, has received mixed reviews by users, with some bemoaning a lowering of Sigma’s quality control, while others just thought the lens wasn’t quite refined. It would seem Sigma have listened, as redesigning the lens from scratch is no small thing. Another reason for redsigning this lens is the addition to its optical formula of a new type of glass, that deserves its own paragraph.

Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM
(Photo pinched from eNet.com.cn)

Sigma announced the introduction of FLD glass into some of their lenses (including the 85mm f/1.4), which they co-developed with Hoya, the #1 optical glass maker in the World. To quote Mr Kazuto Yamaki again, FLD glass is described as having Fluorite equivalent characteristics. It’s the most expensive optical glass but it’s still cheaper and lighter than fluorite. Fluorite is a crystal (not actually a glass) that offers very low dispersion, thus reducing chromatic aberrations, and is used mainly (only?) by Canon in their most expensive lenses.

Another lens that will use the magic FLD glass is the 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 rectilinear zoom lens (with HSM!); it has many people on the forums salivating. This is a cropped sensor lens, and I believe it’s the widest rectilinear lens available for APS-C sensors at the moment (Olympus makes a 7-14mm f/4 zoom, but 8mm is wider on APS-C than 7mm is on 4/3). If this lens is as good as Sigma’s venerable 10-20mm f/4-5.6, they are not going to be able to manufacture them fast enough to meet demand.

On the camera front, it’s noteworthy that the DP1x and DP2s were announced, these being slightly updated versions of the company’s DP1 and DP2 fixed-lens compact cameras, respectively. Sigma also expressed their intention to produce interchangeable lens compact cameras using their 1.7x crop Foveon sensor, as well as making lenses for the μ4/3 format. Being the smart people that they are, they said they’re going to wait to see what lenses people prefer using before deciding which they will manufacture. While this makes sense from a marketing standpoint, it sucks from an advanced amateur’s point of view. We want freakishly small primes for these cameras, and the faster they are, the better. As of now, no mirrorless camera system offers a classic 3-prime line-up, nor do the manufacturers seem to be planning one. What a pity.

Samsung

Samsung NX10

Some brands want to do well, others just want to stay above water and survive the global recesion—Samsung wants to own the mirrorless market. Damn… Their first step towards global mirrorless domination was taken at the PMA where they finally showed the NX10 on American soil (they “announced” it countless times during 2009, parading prototypes around various trade shows). The NX10 is a mirrorless (how many times am I going to use that word today?) camera similar to the μ4/3 design of Olympus and Panasonic. The main difference is Samsung has equipped the NX10 with an APS-C sensor, which is about 60% larger than μ4/3 sensors and could best these in lower light performance. While Samsung’s DSLRs used a Pentax K mount, the NX line of cameras (we’ve been promised more coming later this year) use a new mount developed by Samsung and aptly named NX mount. The lenses available initially will be two kit zoom lenses (18-55mm and 50-200mm) and a small pancake prime lens (30mm f/2) but Samsung have released a lens roadmap in an attempt to prove they are serious about this camera system. And global mirrorless domination.

I am expecting to receive one within the next few weeks and will be publishing a review of it, so stay tuned.

Samsung TL500 EX1 (click for hugeness)

But that’s not all! They also announced a seriously attractive P&S called the TL500 (or EX1 if you’re in Europe). It features a 10MP 1/1.7″ CCD sensor, just like the Canon S90, as well as a lens ring control wheel, but adds a hotshoe and a swivelling LCD that are missing on the S90. Click on the photo above to see it in a gloriously huge size. No pricing is available, but I would guess around the US$400 mark. Samsung are clearly wanting to eat into the high-end P&S market currently dominated by Canon (G11 and S90) and the Panasonic LX3. Again, Samsung want us to know they’re serious: The TL500 features an impressive 24-72mm-equiv f/1.8-2.4 lens that is optically stabilised. I can’t wait to see image samples from this beauty.

Sony

Sony EVIL mock-up shown at PMA 2010 (Photo credit: Sony)

Continuing our tour of the S’s, we arrive at Sony’s booth, where (under glass, away from prying hands) they were showing their mock-ups of up-coming alpha mirrorless cameras. Another brand who gets on the mirrorless bandwagon. Until I see working models, I’m not going to have any opinions; all I can say right now is that the sensor on these cameras (Sony has also promised more than one model) will be APS-C sized. Release date? Sometime in 2010.

A successor to the A700 that would feature video was promised, as well as two new lenses under development: A Carl Zeiss 24mm f/2, likely to cost an arm and a leg, and a 500mm f/4, likely to cost the arms and legs of your whole camera club. Check out the cgi pics here.

Nikon

Nikon presented two new lenses: the 24mm f/1.4G and the 16-35mm f/4G. I believe there was much rejoicing over the first (until the price was unveiled…US$2,200), and some bewilderment over the second. You see, Nikonians have been clamouring for a long time over an f/4 zoom line like Canon has—these lenses are smaller, lighter…and cheaper. Because they’re f/4, not f/2.8. So Nikon finally concedes that they’re sucking and release an f/4 zoom, except it’s large, heavy…and expensive. I’m glad I am not a Nikon shooter having been waiting for these lenses for years. At least it’s weather-proofed. But worry not, Nikon has assured its acolytes this is but the first in a new line of zooms; let’s hope the next one isn’t a 24-50mm f/4.

Olympus

They didn’t show anything new, but they did lift their right hand, left hand on Ansel Adams’s The Camera, and swore they would not abandon the DSLR market despite the huge success of their μ4/3 mirrorless cameras. Then to prove it, they showed a prototype for a μ4/3 lens: the 14-150mm f/4-5.6. Wait, shouldn’t they have shown something for standard 4/3? Oh well! Looking at the photo of this lens (which is bigger than the PEN E-PL1 it’s attached to) I can’t help but think it is simply a standard 4/3 design with a longer mount added to assure proper focusing distance. Or maybe not. In any case, I think it’s too big for the camera and defeats the purpose of mirrorless cameras: Small size.

Tokina

The humble 3^rd party lens supplier presented their first full-frame lens in a very long time, a 16-28mm f/2.8. This lens covers a similar range on full-frame as their much-liked and popular 11-16mm f/2.8 does on APS-C, and given the number of “cheap” full-frame cameras on the market right now, it makes sense for Tokina to try to grab some sales from those who can’t afford the OEM wide angle options.

Ricoh

Remember this? We haven’t heard much about the Ricoh GXR since then, but these guys have kept working on the system because they announced the development of two new lens/sensor modules: a small-sensor image-stabilised 28-300mm-equiv f/3.5-5.6, and an APS-C 28mm-equiv. f/2.5. I’m still waiting to see a full review of this camera somewhere—I think DPR are working on one.

Conclusion

These were the items that interested me, and this article is by no means a thorough look at what the PMA had to offer. Search online and you will find descriptions and photos from people who were actually there; many of them talk about the straps, tripods, bags, lights, hats, potato peelers and other photography-related items on display, but they just didn’t get my attention. OK, so there probably weren’t any potato peelers.

I’ll admit I wasn’t blown away by anything, but I am very interested in the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 as a possible future purchase; I’m also looking forward to reviewing the Samsung NX10, the first APS-C mirrorless camera. Let’s hope I don’t have to wait too long because the most exciting think for me at PMA 2009 was…the Samsung NX10!

In case you’re wondering, I used the word “mirrorless” a total of 11 times in this article.

Note: Links in this article might be to one of our affiliate stores. Purchases made from our affiliates through these links will benefit Enticing the Light at no extra cost to you.

Related posts:

1. PMA 2009 Round Up
2. 2010 Scott Kelby Worldwide Photowalk Date Set
3. New Samsung M8910 Pixon12 Cameraphone Is Better than Canon 350D (Digital Rebel XT)

Every day Amazon offers a Gold Box special. During those 24 hours you can purchase what’s inside the box at a greatly discounted rate. Today, this Gold Box Special is the Pentax K-7 DSLR for $899 body only. This is a fantastic price for a camera that’s been retailing for $1,150-1,300 in the last weeks. DP Review gave it a Highly Recommended stamp in their review late last year. And for $100 more (at $999) you can purchase it with the highly-regarded 18-55mm Weather-Resistant kit lens. This package provides the most compact, weather-sealed advanced DSLR on the market today, and it’s also the most affordable to boot.

I’d like to point out that if you purchase through our affiliate links below, you’ll be helping support Enticing the Light at no extra cost to you. Your price is the same, but Amazon will give us a small commission for referring you. Don’t we all win this way? Click on the images below to visit their Amazon page.

$899 Body only	$999 With 18-55mm WR kit lens

Oh, you’ll have to click on the “See price in cart” link within the Amazon page. Their price is so low that they can’t advertise it. And remember, sale ends today at 23:59 Mountain Time (01:59 Eastern Time) or while supplies last. I believe International purchases are also eligible for this offer.

Note: Links in this article might be to one of our affiliate stores. Purchases made from our affiliates through these links will benefit Enticing the Light at no extra cost to you.

Related posts:

1. The Time Has Come for a New DSLR Paradigm
2. Review – Pentax K-x Part 1: First Look
3. Review – Pentax K-x Part 2: Features, Menus, Ergonomics

Photo courtesy of B&H Photo

The release of the new Canon EOS 550D (T2i Digital Rebel in the US) got me thinking. Is a Sub $800.00 18MP camera really required? What’s the upside to the shooter? Is this an advancement of the “more is better” megapixel race? I’m sure I’ll stand in the minority on this but I feel there are a few valid points to consider. I welcome your thoughts in the comment section. Before you consider these the ramblings of an old-school shooter, let me make it clear that I do welcome necessary advancements in camera features and quality, but I’m just not sure how this is a benefit to advancing the APS-C format. It sure will grab some headlines, though.

So let me start out with a few disclaimers. I’m no engineer or physicist, I have just enough of a basic understanding to get me in a little trouble discussing CMOS and CCD designs. This is not a brand-bashing article either, it’s just that Canon has offered the first 18MP camera with a street price of $799.00¹. Finally, I haven’t handled this camera. It’s introduction really made me wonder why we need an 18MP camera that seems to be tailored to the first time DSLR buyer. Following are some of the points I want you to consider when thinking about high pixel count APS-C DSLRs.

Computer Requirements

To start with, if you are moving into DSLRs for the first time, do you need 18MP, or for that matter 15MP? If you shoot RAW (and I would think most should) to get the most out of a DSLR, you’re probably looking at a computer upgrade. The file size of a RAW file with a sensor this size is about 24.5MB (5184 x 3456 pixels)². So load that file size into a program like Adobe Photoshop and if you’re at 2GB of RAM, it’s going to be really slow to load or edit anything, maybe even at 4GB. If you can upgrade the computer memory, then you have a relatively cheap fix. But if not, you’re going to want a new system very quickly. Laptop owners may be very limited with upgrade options.

Hard Drive Space

I never delete files totally; I’ll sort the poor shots from the good and store the poor ones as unused. Why? Well, my post processing skills improve on a regular basis. What I could do with a poor shot 2 years ago is very different than what I can do today. Who knows what software improvements will bring in the future? So unless it’s complete junk, I save it somewhere. 24.5MB files will fill a hard drive very fast, so you’ll need external hard drives or a new internal upgrade fairly quickly.

Memory Cards

If you have a bunch of 1 and 2GB SD cards from your P&S, well they will be tossed fairly quickly. Consider that a 1GB card will probably hold 38-40 images at full RAW size. That takes us back to the 36 negative film days. You’re going to fill that card up in 11.1 seconds at 3.6 fps chasing that bird in the backyard. One of the benefits of a digital camera is meant to be the ability to blast away if you choose to because there are no film costs. So add a bit more to the budget for some 32GB cards for that vacation trip. Of course, you can always lower the image size (by shooting JPEG), use your 1GB cards and….in the end, maybe the P&S would be have been better for the vacation.

Any or all of these issues may cost you more than just getting a new camera body.

Display Sizes

What does the buyer of this camera use it for to show off their photos? Sites like Flickr? On the computer? 4″×6″ or 5″x7″ prints with the occasional 8″×10″? Do you need 5184 x 3456 pixels for that? Nope, sites like Flickr will restrict image sizes and most monitors have between 1024 x768 to 1280×1024 pixel displays³. Web sites you might create will be less than this. You can make 18″x27″ prints with 6MP images from a DSLR without a problem.

Image Quality

That’s the huge appeal for the buyer. 18MP must be better than 15MP, or 12MP right? So why did the new full-frame Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III come out at only 21.1MP? Wouldn’t 40.5MP (keeping the same pixel density as the T2i) be the right pixel size? My basic understanding of pixel density is that the smaller the pixels on the sensor, the noise will increase.

The output read noise power is directly proportional to the vertical resolution of the imager and inversely proportional to the pixel area, resulting in a strong dependence between noise and pixel density.⁴

The 1Ds Mk III uses a full-frame sensor which is 864mm² vs the APS-C sensor at 413mm², and as a result the pixels are going to be roughly twice the area. Why so few pixels? Because this camera is aimed at the Pro market where good low light control and fine detail is demanded. More pixels aren’t necessarily better. To get clean images from a high megapixel APS-C camera a lot more noise processing is going to have to happen before the RAW image is written to the card. So you’re not going to have the fine detail nearly as much as the RAW image that is a less processed native image from a full-frame sensor. Pro shooters don’t want the image processed by the camera, they want that control for post processing work.

So What Are the Advantages?

1. You can crop the heck out of your shots, but you need to be using top quality lenses to achieve maximum resolution.
2. You can print images to sizes that we just normally don’t do (24″x36″, for example).
3. Marketing for the camera companies. Not really to our benefit but to sell more cameras.

So the T2i is a stripped down 7D that retains the 18MP sensor to sell this entry-level model. For me, that just doesn’t make sense and I certainly hope the camera companies don’t go down this road together.

Cheers and Good Shooting –Peter Zack

¹ Price: Adorama and B&H
² Canon USA web site specs: Canon
³ W3Schools
⁴ MIT paper Pixel density

Note: Links in this article might be to one of our affiliate stores. Purchases made from our affiliates through these links will benefit Enticing the Light at no extra cost to you.

Related posts:

1. For the Canon Shooter Who Has Everything
2. New Samsung M8910 Pixon12 Cameraphone Is Better than Canon 350D (Digital Rebel XT)
3. Some Canon S90 Sample Shots

As some of you may have noticed, I bought a Canon S90 a couple of months ago and have been putting it through its paces during this time. While the reviews showed photos taken mostly for the purposes of testing the camera, the fact is I bought the S90 to take real photographs with.

Below I’m posting some “real” photos for your enjoyment (click for larger versions). If you would like to see more, you can check out my Canon S90 Gallery.

When I view these photos, varied in style as they are, I see a clear similarity between them: The only reason they exist is because I had the camera in my pocket. For only two of them did I also have my DSLR with me, but packed away in my backpack, whence it was unlikely to come out to take either of those two photos. So thanks to my new pocketcam, I have a handful of photos I wouldn’t otherwise have taken. No, the S90 isn’t perfect, but it’s proving to be extremely useful nonetheless, proving once again that, more often than not, the best camera is the one you have with you.

Note: Links in this article might be to one of our affiliate stores. Purchases made from our affiliates through these links will benefit Enticing the Light at no extra cost to you.

Related posts:

1. Review – Canon S90, Part 3: Image Quality
2. Review – Canon S90, Part 1: First Impressions
3. Review – Canon S90, Part 2: Using the Camera

⇐ Part 2: Using the Camera

Any engineer will tell you that all technical designs are a study in compromise, and this is palpably, and visually, true for cameras. We can cry out for tiny cameras as much as we like, but we’ll have to pay a price in image quality (IQ)—there is no way around that. So while the Canon S90 is pocketable, is its IQ good enough that you will actually want to put it in your pocket? For those of you who don’t want to read the rest of this article, here is my answer: Yes. For those who don’t just want to take my word for it (and you shouldn’t), keep on reading.

The Trials and Tribulations of a Small Sensor

The S90′s 1/1.7″ sensor has a surface area of 43.3 mm², by comparison an APS-C sensor has an area of about 385 mm² and a full-frame of 864 mm². Despite this huge difference in area, the S90 produces good images with pleasing colours. Where I’ve found the S90 to lag is in sharpness, with images having the typical telltale, mushy feel of a P&S camera. I can recover some detail with judicious sharpening, but I’ve found I need to pay a lot more attention and work harder with the sharpening than I need to with my DSLR. Happily, Canon decided to scale back and only crammed 10MP into this little sensor, but the pixels are still much smaller, and thus noisier, than those in a DSLR. Another issue with small sensors is achieving the wide angle FoV, especially with zoom lenses; in most cases wide angles will exhibit noticeable barrel distortion. This can be corrected in postprocessing, and I’ll be taking a look at how well the S90 files cope with this.

Dynamic Range

No lab tests here, just some good old-fashioned real-world photography. Exhibit A: Bright, sunlit buildings (which are actually misshaped, that’s not lens distortion) with shade in front. The sky is nice and bright, as are the lit parts of the buildings, yet there’s plenty of detail in the shadowed area. Honestly, this is all I need to know.

The S90 at Low ISO

I will not be publishing 100% crops at various ISOs, as those can be found elsewhere on the internet (for example, at the Imaging Resource S90 samples page). Mine will be more of a qualitative comment on low ISO performance. OK, here it goes…

It’s very good. At the very least, it’s good enough. Good enough for what? Good enough for me.

Seriously, I don’t know what else I can say. Search on Flickr and you’ll find almost 4,000 photos tagged with S90, take a look and see what you think. Colours are nice, JPEGs are sharp, RAWs are a bit soft (so you can apply your own sharpening to taste) and life is generally good. Granted, it’s a P&S, so you shouldn’t compare it to a DSLR (not that that’s stopped some people), but I don’t see a difference in web-sized images. There are differences at the pixel level, but I suspect these won’t translate to differences visible in 8×10 prints. In fact, I plan to test this in the near future to see if it’s true&mdasg;I’ll keep you posted.

Here’s a snapshot at ISO 80, 40mm-equiv., f/5.6, and pretty much auto everything else. I shot in RAW and converted with ACR, but I only applied my standard S90 settings to the image, meaning it looks quite close to how the camera-made JPEG would have looked. I love the sky, which really was that blue.

For all the pixel-peepers out there, I’m also including a 100% crop for your viewing pleasure. I didn’t perform any special sharpening, which I normally would if I were cropping an image this much (like my white squirrel). Some may have noticed that the tones of blue in the sky don’t transition smoothly. Welcome to the world of small sensors (although DSLRs can also render tonal gradients in this way). I don’t think this would be a problem in a print.

Here’s another pic at ISO 80 showing pleasing colours (shot at the long end, wide open):

The S90 at High ISO

Now things begin to get interesting! A P&S claiming 3200 as its maximum ISO has some big proving to do. Again, if scene comparisons is what you want, please go to the Imaging Resource S90 samples page. What I’m going to do here is show you a scene at ISO 1600 in 3 different versions: as it came out of camera via the JPEG engine, as a RAW processed with DPP, and as a RAW processed with ACR. Instead of showing 100% crops, you can just take a look at the full-res images by clicking on the thumbnails below.

ISO 1600 comparison for the Canon S90

Direct from camera	Processed with DPP	Processed with ACR

There are clear differences: The out-of-camera JPEG shows the least amount of chroma noise, yet there is little detail left and the colours are dull; the DPP-processed image (with automatically chosen noise reduction settings) shows slightly more detail and is less washed out, but the colours are still dull; finally, the ACR-processed image (with no real noise reduction) is clearly noisier, yet the colours are truer to life and there is a bit more detail. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, so pick your poison: dull, featureless, noiseless images, or vibrant, slightly-more-detailed, noisy ones. It’s your choice! If you plan to use external noise reduction software, shooting RAW is definitely the best option; if you process with DPP, don’t forget to turn off noise reduction before exporting to your preferred noise reduction program.

I (and Canon) consider high ISO to start at 800, so let’s see what the S90 can do at that sensitivity. Enter the surprised squirrel. Shot at ISO 800, 105mm-equiv. f/4.9, 1/100s (and slightly cropped, I confess):

Let’s satisfy our innermost pixel-peeping urges and look at a 100% crop (feel free to click to enlarge):

I added a touch of sharpening to improve the squirrelness. This is not a great image, but it’s not that bad either, bearing in mind it’s from a P&S with the lens wide open and at ISO 800.

Final verdict: The S90′s high ISO capabilities are impressive for a P&S. No, it’s not as good as a DSLR, but we shouldn’t be comparing it to one (although some people do). That said, it was only a few years ago that DSLRs had similar high ISO performance, so I’m happy to see this good behaviour in a P&S. If you’re wondering why I didn’t show an ISO 3200 shot, it’s because it’s one stop worse than ISO 1600, and if you use it, to so at your own risk and don’t come crying to me if your pictures have no detail.

Oh what the hell, here’s a sample at ISO 3200. I’m only posting it at websize, though. Processed via ACR with Chroma and Luminance noise reduction added to taste.

Long Exposures

I only had one real opportunity to test this out, so bear with me. Here are 3 examples; click on them for the full size.

Canon S90 long exposure test

1.6 s	5 s	15 s

They look fine to me, which makes me wonder why Canon were afraid to add a bulb shooting mode (or exposures longer than 15s). I mean, that’s why they didn’t give the S90 a bulb mode, cos they were afraid. Right…? Add this to the list of things that baffle me about this camera. And yes, I understand that to add a bulb mode would have meant adding a connector for a cable release…but this wouldn’t have been a bad thing to begin with.

Geometric Distortion

Let’s not beat around the bush: The lens on the S90 provides a healthy dose of barrel distortion at all focal lengths, although it is worse at 28mm-equiv. It seems the camera’s firmware corrects some of it in-camera, and I say “it seems” because I have not been able to find any official confirmation of this fact. Tom Niemann, creator of the PTLens software tells me the RAW files don’t have quite as much correction as the JPEGs out of camera, which means the camera must be performing some type of correction. And speaking of PTLens, I contacted Tom about adding the S90 to his list of supported cameras and he was most gracious. He sent me instructions on what photographs I should take with the S90, and after I sent him the files, he calculated the correction parameters from them and created a profile for the S90. I have been using PTLens for over 2 years and am very happy with it; and at $25 it is one of the cheapest programs (or Photoshop plug-ins) available. You can download a trial version here.

Distortion correction for the Canon S90
(colour differences are due to different settings on DPP)

Uncorrected	Corrected with DPP	Corrected with PTLens

Canon’s RAW converter, DPP, can also completely correct distortion. When using it early on (before Adobe released a profile for the S90′s RAW files) I did all distortion correction with DPP. Having compared it to PTLens, I see only a slight difference, with DPP correcting a bit more than PTLens. Forgive me, but I haven’t photographed graph paper to measure which correction is truer, but PTLens’s looks good enough to me, so that’s what I’ll be using. On the plus side, I have found no loss of detail in in-focus areas associated with the correction. I have, on some occasions, seen a slight loss of detail in out-of-focus areas in some images. I find this strange and cannot readily explain it, but because the difference occurs only occasionally, in a part of the image that is not as important, and the loss of detail is not great, I have not lost any sleep over it.

Because correcting distortion adds an extra step to my post-processing, I only apply it when absolutely necessary. I’ve found that in most cases the barrel distortion is either not noticeable, or not objectionable. Oh, and DPP can automatically correct vignetting too (although you have to tell it to do it), but PTLens requires manually selecting the parameters. If this statement seems like an afterthought, it’s because it is—I just haven’t found vignetting in the S90 to be a big deal.

The last issue associated with distortion correction via software is the reduction in the FoV. Because the image is “squeezed in” from the sides, the edges have to be cut off so as not to leave the photo with the shape of a bow-tie. From those of you expecting me to tell you how many degrees of FoV you lose at each focal length, I beg forgiveness—I had neither the time nor inclination to test this. To the eye, it doesn’t seem like much is lost, and if instead of 28mm-equiv. the wide end is 29mm-equiv., then so be it; I will add that to the list of compromises I am happy to make in order to have this camera in my pocket.

Macro

The S90 does macro at the wide end, which I find annoying. Macro reproduction is about 1:10; to obtain the same magnification with an APS-C DSLR you’d need a lens capable of 1:3 macro. I haven’t done any serious macro shooting, but here’s a flower at close to maximum magnification:

And (you guessed it), here’s a 100% crop:

Make your own mind up.

Lens Flare

Again, I was lazy. I just took 3 pics at different apertures shooting into the Sun. Click thumbnails for larger version and judge. I think flare control is very good, and I especially like those Sun spikes at f/8.

Canon S90 flare test

f/2.8	f/4	f/8

Chromatic Aberrations

You will have to forgive me here for not presenting some evidence for what I am about to say, but a) I simply do not have time right now as I’m travelling in 3 days, and b) The file I was going to use as an example I converted the CR2 to DNG, and then deleted it. You’ll just have to take my word on this. The S90 does quite well in dealing with CA, which I have managed to induce only in areas of very high contrast. It seems to favour blue or green fringing, which is much less unsightly than the purple variety. DPP does a wonderful job of dealing with it, although it’s not quite automatic and you have to play around with sliders to get the best result. ACR does not handle it quite as well, but is still acceptable. In general, I have not found CAs to be a problem, but do be careful of tree branches against cloudy skies.

RAW vs JPEG

I don’t want to get into a general debate about one shooting style vs the other, just give my opinions as they pertain to the S90. Those photographers who shoot straight JPEGs have nothing to worry about with this camera, whose JPEG engine works very well up to ISO 800 (in part aided by its superb auto white balance). From ISO 800 onwards the camera does a great job of killing noise, but at the expense of lost detail—for some this is not an issue, and at web viewing sizes there is little difference. If you can dial in the JPEG settings so that images come out with the colour, saturation and contrast you like, you’re good to go out of camera.

I shoot RAW, not because there’s better image quality to be obtained, but because there is more latitude when postprocessing images, which I regularly do. Most of my photography is in B&W, which involves a conversion with selective channel processing, not to mention highlight and/or shadow recovery—a RAW file fares much better under such assaults. If all I did in postprocessing was bump up the contrast and maybe add a bit of sharpening, I would shoot JPEG without a doubt.

Conclusion

No camera is perfect, and the S90 is as far from it as the best of them, yet it is still eminently useful. I will not be returning it nor selling it off, and I foresee it giving me a few good years of use as a pocket cam. I Despite its drawbacks, none of them make me feel like I’m fighting the camera every time I take a photograph. As I’ve grown used to it during these past weeks I have figured out a workflow to photographing with it that I’m happy with and seems to give me the results I want. I’m still learning the ropes when it comes to postprocessing (it was only admitted into the Adobe stable of supported cameras some 3 weeks ago) but so far I am happy with the IQ I can extract from the RAW files.

As far as the user experience goes, I find the camera user-friendly, and what’s more important, photographer friendly. I have larger than average hands yet can handle the camera just fine. Having the shutter button so far into the top plate took some time getting used to, but now it’s a non-issue, as is the rear control wheel that is annoying so many other people—it just depends on how you hold the camera. As for another requirement of the forum brigade, autofocus speed, I don’t feel like I’m qualified to grade it, especially after reading the multitude of opinions on the autofocus speed of the Olympus E-P1. The S90′s autofocus speed is faster than I can focus manually, yet slower than a speeding bullet.

Will it make my DSLR obsolete? Absolutely not, but that’s not why I bought it. I wanted the best IQ I could carry everywhere in my trouser pocket, and the S90 is just that: The smallest compromise I could make in the smallest P&S I could find.

To end this 3-part review I want to list the pros and cons I find for the S90. Many of the cons could be easily fixed via firmware, and while I would love Canon to address them themselves (as I’m not the only one with similar complaints), I suspect the folks at CHDK will do it sooner (some hope here).

Pros:

• Small, light and pocketable
• Good JPEGs and RAW files (superb for a P&S)
• Impressive high ISO performance for a P&S
• Fast f/2 aperture at the wide end
• Superb auto WB which can be manually fine-tuned
• PASM shooting modes plus very useful Custom mode
• Highly customisable buttons and dials (including lens ring) allowing direct or quick access to most important features (i.e., superb user interface)
• Very fast start up time
• Powerful, adjustable onboard flash
• Accurate AF (with assist lamp in low light)
• Can review images with camera turned off
• Very nice, bright, crisp LCD screen that can be used in strong sunlight light

Cons:

• Manual mode disables auto ISO (Canon, give us auto ISO in M mode!)
• Manual focus offers a poor distance scale and no indication of depth of field
• Manual focus mode “disappears” when camera goes into sleep mode
• No hyperfocal focus mode
• No way to turn off sleep mode
• No RAW shooting in modes other than P, Av, Sv or M
• The lens is very slow at the long end (f/4.9); if Canon could make it f/3.5, or even f/4, it would be so much better
• One cannot customise the auto ISO range and the manual doesn’t even tell what the range is for each shooting mode/scene
• No bulb mode (with 15s being the longest exposure available)
• No cable nor IR remote release
• No hotshoe (though not much of a problem for me)

If you are thinking of buying this camera, please consider ordering it through our Amazon link below. You will be helping support EtL at no extra cost to you. Thanks!

Canon PowerShot S90IS 10MP Digital Camera with 3.8x Wide Angle Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 3-inch LCD

Purchase the Canon S90 from Amazon.co.uk
Purchase the Canon S90 from B&H
Purchase the Canon S90 from Adorama

Note: Links in this article might be to one of our affiliate stores. Purchases made from our affiliates through these links will benefit Enticing the Light at no extra cost to you.

Related posts:

1. Review – Canon S90, Part 1: First Impressions
2. Review – Canon S90, Part 2: Using the Camera
3. Some Canon S90 Sample Shots