Tired of dragging that lumpy NIKON around? Time to rethink your gear?
Part One: The Promise
Kaizen is a Japanese word defining the philosophy of never-ending improvement, or the drive for perfection. Over the last decade, the Japanese have perfected the Digital SLR. Even consumer models like Canon Rebels and Nikon D3100s are enormously capable: they’ll autofocus in a heartbeat, shoot as soon as you push the shutter and produce high resolution images with monotonous regularity but also with great sharpness and tremendous dynamic range.
There’s only one thing wrong with today’s DSLRs: they’re big, heavy and ugly. Yes, even the small ones are lumpy things. In the film era, we had more compact rangefinders as an alternative but they went out the door with 35mm film. We’ve waited for digital equivalents, but all we got were digicams that looked like range finders – the Canon G12 and Nikon P7000 are the current contenders for this pathetic crown
These things are pretenders. They look like rangefinders but they’re just digicams with tiny sensors in big body armour. They look the goods, and they cost as much as a basic DSLR. Like all digicams, they produce fine images in ideal situations. Why didn’t Canon and Nikon put a decent size sensors inside these ‘rangefinders’? Sticking a tiny sensor into a big body makes about as much sense as sticking a 1.3 litre engine into a Cadillac.
The Micro Four Thirds (M43 or MFT) coalition promised a better solution: bigger sensors in smaller cameras. The M43 concept was built around doing away with the traditional SLR’s mirror box, and around sensors about a quarter the size of a 35mm frame or FX digital sensor. That might sound small but the M43 sensor is 5-6 times bigger than the biggest digicam sensors in the two cameras shown above.
M43 cameras and lenses had a long gestation time, and the first out of the blocks was Panasonic’s G1 a couple of years ago. Olympus followed with the E-PL1 or PEN, a name that harked back to the company’s famous compact film cameras of the eighties. Sadly, the M43 prices explored new heights way above the level of basic DSLRs. Sure, there was lots to admire here – size, style and image quality, to name a few – but the price of the cameras said: if you want to be trendy, you’ll have to pay for the privilege.
Olympus E-P1 launch, Sydney. Nikon D40, kit 18-55 lens, 1/50 sec, 50mm, ISO 400, manual
Then Samsung gave the M43 makers a reality check with its highly competent APS-C sensor-based NX10. That happened a year ago, and I was really impressed when I tested the NX10 - http://www.digital-photography-school.com/samsung-nx10-%E2%80%93-raising-the-stakes. Trouble was, the NX10 wasn’t much smaller than my Nikon D40, and the images weren’t any better just bigger. And it had an awful electronic viewfinder.
Samsung - and Sony who followed more recently with the NEX series - weren’t part of the M43 coalition, so a new name had to be found for these kinds of cameras. It looks like the term EVIL cameras (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) will prevail, although the DEVIL (Digital EVIL) puts in an occasional appearance.
Size is everything
Just a couple of months ago, I bought a Nikon D5000 – with the price coming down, and the Aussie $ going up, it worked out to just over $600. Irresistible. The extra heft of the D5000 body was noticeable but acceptable with my favourite 18-70mm lens on it. Then I loaned that lens and the D40 to my son and bought an 18-105mm VR. I know this sounds silly but that extra 50g in weight and 1.5 cm in length were the tipping point: suddenly the D5000/18-105 combo felt too hefty slung over my shoulder.
In point of fact, the 18-105 is one of the lighter lenses I own. The Tamron 70—300mm VC USD I bought a few months back is twice the size and weight. Taking it anywhere requires special preparation that includes weight training. I’d harboured a desire to own a Nikon D700 one day, and bought several lenses on eBay with that desire in mind (including the big Tamron). Now I wondered if bigger gear was the wrong way to go.
Size is a burden
I like shooting seascapes, landscapes, cityscapes, people, animals and flowers. I like to take my camera walkabout and the Nikon D700 isn’t that kind of camera. Not even the new D7000 is – it’s bigger than the D5000, and heavier too. Yes, you get a whole lot more on paper with every new generation (for the extra money and weight), but the gains become more marginal. Tell you the truth, I got some of my best photos out of the D40 http://www.digital-photography-school.com/nikon-d40-modern-classic-review. You can also check the galleries in the right bar of this blog.
Yes, the D5000 has more AF options, a faster shutter, a grid in the viewfinder and a flip-out screen. And a new sensor with better low-light performance, on paper at least. In the real world, the difference is barely noticeable. Mind you, the D5000 is no D700. The D5000 is a D90 with fewer buttons and more scene modes. The D7000 is a D90 with more ... you get my drift.
Cameras are computers
Digital camera bodies are gadgets with lenses on the outside and chips on the inside. Their makers get you on the treadmill of frequent step-ups to the latest body which will be obsolete in two years time or less. What are we chasing? Better low-light ability? better resolution? Faster, more reliable autofocus? Better metering or white balance? Better video? How about better photos?
Lenses are a better investment but soon you find yourself with a drawer full of them, and now it takes you an hour to pack your photo bag because you can’t decide which lenses to take. Unless you get one of those special backpacks that advertises what a dawk you are – a guy with a huge canon in his hand and a backpack full of heavy kit with a mini tripod strapped to it. Are we having fun yet?
NO! We want small and agile, a camera that fits in a pocket or a small bum bag, and a couple of small lenses. And a decent size sensor. That’s it.
EVIL cameras are good
Now that the price is right, these compact cameras make a lot more sense. You’re still on the treadmill, mind you – Olympus and Panasonic have released about 4 new models each in the last 18 months. Ricoh and Sony have jumped into this market as well. Sony is all about style and went to great lengths to prove it could make the slickest little camera body ever. It did, but the lens guys weren’t on the same page and the result is an unbalanced package of strange proportions.
Photo courtesy of http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex5nex3/
Ricoh is more of a true innovator, as it proved that with the GXR: a compact body with controls and screen on the outside and a chipset on the inside, and sensor/lens modules that slot into the body like Lego blocks. Ingenious except that adding a sensor to the lens will bump up the price. The best lens modules include an APS-C sensor so it’s no surprise that they’re expensive.
It’s a slick innovation but a really dumb idea. Here’s why: when new modules with improved sensors are released, as is inevitable, the old modules will become almost worthless. Nikon and Canon glass holds its value because the glass is separate from the electronics. No matter, says Steven Huff, the 28 and 50mm lenses are so good you’ll never want a better compact camera. I’m not convinced. http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/12/02/the-ricoh-gxr-digital-camera-review-with-the-28mm-and-50mm-modules/
Back to the old EVILs – Panasonic and Olympus
Samsung has a slick new model out in the NX100 - smooth in shape, not lumpy – but it’s intended market is the young trendy set. Shame, I liked the NX10. That leaves Panasonic and Olympus, the Micro 4/3 originators. Reading the reviews, it looks like Panasonic’s lenses have an edge, even if most aren’t made by Leica. That’s surprising given the reputation Olympus built for M.Zuiko lenses over the decades. Another advantage for Panasonic is its AF system, which is said to be a lot faster.
Some Pannies offer an articulated screen, which is a real attraction when you don’t have a DSLR-style viewfinder. Yes, there are optional EVs but they add bulk. I’m looking for the least bulk possible here, and that means the G1/G2 models with their mini DSLR bodies have no appeal. Can’t figure out why Panasonic makes these cameras look something they aren’t.
That left the GF1, which was replaced by the GF2 late last year and has just started shipping. The smaller body of the GF2 is attractive but the reviews I read said it had been dumbed down for a different market: the same market Samsung designed the NX100 for: trendy young things who like to surround themselves with slick gadgets from Sony and Apple. It even has a touch screen.
It’s a winner, they say
There are dozens of positive reviews of the GF1 on the web. Here’s the most rigorous one http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicgf1/, and the usually fairly clinical Simon Joinson says this in his conclusion: ‘In the case of the GF1, I think I set a new personal record, shooting well over 3000 pictures, way above the 800-1200 or so we'd normally consider to be more than enough to get under the skin of a camera. I'm not saying they were all winning shots, just that the GF1 is a camera that simply cries out to be used and, for this occasionally jaded user at least, puts the fun back into photography. Another clue as to how much we liked the GF1 is that people in the office have actually been shelling out their own money to buy them, something almost unheard of in an office with cupboards full of all the latest cameras.’
David Clapp’s review for ephotozine.com starts like this: ‘Do you want a compact 12mp system that almost rivals a Canon EOS 5D, fits in your pocket and produces knockout results? A landscape camera capable of truly remarkable images, with Raw output that will literally make you double-take? A hiking companion without compromise? Bridging the gap at last, the GF1 has me spellbound.’ http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gf1-in-the-landscape-12908
Steve Huff wrote on his blog: ‘There were times when I sat there saying, “Its all Bullshit!” - I mean, I was ready to go tell the wife I was selling my Leica M9 and I was ready to buy the GF1 with the kit zoom, the 20 1.7 and 7-14 lenses, and just shoot with that.’ http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/THE_PANASONIC_GF1_REVIEW.html
Jim Radcliffe at Boxed Light actually ended up selling his Leica M8, and wrote: ‘One lens from the M system was enough to cover the purchase of the GF1 and three additional lenses with money left over. I now have a more versatile camera than the M and at a fraction of the cost. That's a good thing.’ http://www.boxedlight.com/gf1/index.htm
As good as it gets?
Even in the digital age, manufacturers sometimes hit a design sweet spot, where all the bits work so well together that the result is greater than the sum of its parts. The Nikon D40 is one example, the current Dell Vostro 3400 laptop is another, the Apple iPad yet another (yes, it’s a grudging addition). As I read these reviews, I began to think the GF1 was one of those. I couldn’t wait to get my hands on a GF1.
End of Part I
Part 2 here:
http://briard.typepad.com/get_the_picture/2011/02/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gf1-evil-fun-part-2.html
Comments