In The Picture

VIVID Lights up Sydney by Night

It’s that time of the year. Winter, short days, long cold nights and special effects at Circular Quay. The walkways around the Quay were thick with people, a mix of parents with kids and tourists. The dark is  popular time with small kids, and fancy lights have an almost hypnotic effect on them. It was good to see so many people here, and lots of kids of all ages. (Just click on any of the images to see a full-size file)

Major alterations to the architecture of the iconic Opera House, thankfully only a light projection

Looking the other way toward the Hyatt and the bridge

The fire eater who's always performing down here was here tonight as well.

Where does this chandelier come from? No idea.

Looking back toward the city. Very colourful. VIVID.

Allow me a modest boast, please: all these shots were taken handheld with my old Nikon D40x and the old 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens which isn't fast. I forgot to take my monopod as well, so all shots were handheld at between 1/5th and 1/20th second. The success ratio was a surprising 25%.

Kim

Leica M Monochrom and x2 – the luxury collection

Leica milks its brand for all it's worth

I’ve long thought of Leica as the Penfolds Grange of the camera business: a brand with a cachet far exceeding its value, and a company hell-bent on squeezing every last dollar out of it. People with too much money tend to buy Leica cameras for much the same reason they buy Penfolds Grange or $10K watches. A Leica won’t make you a better photographer as I explained here http://briard.typepad.com/get_the_picture/2009/12/why-a-leica-wont-improve-your-photography.html

Today I read this at Imaging Resource: ‘Leica’s fame was built on the work and celebrity of Henri Cartier-Bresson. However, I cannot imagine it would please HCB to see the "luxe" direction Leica is taking. Bresson believed in the power of photography. Before his death, he created a photographic center in Paris to encourage and exhibit the work of photographers, mostly Leica photographers. If he were alive today, I have to believe he would urge Leica to invest a little more in the future of cameras as "working tools" rather than in the future of cameras as "investments." Author Steve Melzer is a long time Leica loyalist – more here http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/05/16/the-leica-m-monochrom-is-leica-pricing-out-its-loyal-customers-with-an-8000

The standard Leica M9 costs a breathtaking $7000 for the body alone. That’s not exclusive enough for some playboys, so Leica has once again released a Hermès edition which will sell for between $25 and $50,000. Hermès is a Parisian fashion house specialising in wearable accessories with eye-watering price tags. The good news is that you get a lens or three with these special Leicas, and a few other fashion accessories.

The highlight of the Hermes M9 is the calf skin leather supplied by Hermes for the silver version of the Leica M9-P camera. This ultra-fine leather is also used for the shoulder strap included in the Hermes Leica set. In addition to a dedicated serial number, each camera is also given a limited-edition number. The base Hermes package includes a book and a bag and an anodised 50mm f/1.4 ASPH lens for $25,000. The more limited edition (100 sets instead of 300) is boxed with three silver-anodised lenses - the 28mm f/2 ASPH and 50mm f/0.95 and 90mm f/2 ASPH - priced at a trifling $50,000.

Leica M Monochrom

Now comes the interesting part: Steve Melzer’s comments weren’t aimed at the Hermes Leica but the new M9 Monochrom which captures only black and white images and has a sensor optimised for that genre. That little touch adds $1,000 to the camera’s price. What’s the market for such a tool? As Steve points out, the photographers who shoot serious black-and-white photos for exhibition prints still tend to use black-and-white film and medium or large format cameras. So this is just another blatant attempt to cash in on the fame of its most famous user: Henri Cartier-Bresson.

Full-size (35mb) Monochrom sample images are available for download here: http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/leica_m_monochrom_photos/

Theres’ a hands-on report here:

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/45676/leica-m9-hermes-pictures-and-hands-on

The poor man’s Leica

Yes, there is one, kind of: A couple of years ago, Leica produced a new entry-level camera in the x1. It looked like a Leica – much like the baby A160 looks like a Mercedes) and sold for a modest (by Leica standards) $2,000 including a prime lens that was fixed. The x1 used an APS-C size 12mp sensor, not a full frame sensor like the M series, but the image quality was widely praised.

Leica has just introduced the x2, which adds a little bulk and weight apart from a 16mp sensor and a faster AF system. Not much else is new, except that 2 grand buys a lot of good kit these days – and there’s a lot more competition in this area now. The Fuji X100 is as well made and as capable at half  the price. Here’s a hands-on for the Leica x2 http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/45688/leica-x2-pictures-and-hands-on-preview

Worse news for Leica is the Fuji Pro x1 (confused yet?), which is just as capable as the M9 at a quarter the price. And don’t underestimate the quality of Fuji’s lenses. That won’t matter to those who buy Leicas for the cachet and don’t care about the cash. Those of us who're looking for value may baulk at $2,000 for a basic camera, and opt for a Nikon D5100 instead. This is a shot taken casually with a D5000 and the 55-300mm lens, a sub $1000 combo.

If you really have to have a camera with that famous red dot on it, and you don't have a lot of dollars to spend, there’s a more reasonbly-priced Leica for you: the V-Lux 40 for about $700.

You wouldn’t expect a company with Leica's cachet to rebadge another company’s product, let alone a Panasonic product, but that’s what the V-Lux 40 is: a Panasonic Lumix TZ30. The saving grace is that the Panny uses a Leica lens. You pay another $300 for the red dot, mind you, and all Leica throws in is a copy of Photoshop Elements 10, Premiere Elements and a 2-year warranty.

In summing up, I agree with Steve Melzer at Imaging Resource: Leica ought to invest a little more in the future of cameras as working tools instead of playing the fashion and luxury goods markets. If you’re looking for the best photo tools at sensible prices, look elsewhere. Then again, maybe I'm missing something - maybe a Leica attracts classier birds than a Nikon. Maybe Lorelei drapes herself over a rock near you if you have a Leica in your hands ...

Kim

Spiegel im Spiegel by Avo Pärt

Not all modern music is an attack on your senses

This music sounds like it's come straight from heaven

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8ZScAdV8qE&feature=fvwrel

Let's end the day on a higher note - simple beauty

Kim

Nikon’s D3200 – as good as it gets for $700?

Probably, but we're spoilt for choice aren't we?

Nikon released the D3200 with a 24 megapixel sensor, which makes it the lowest priced DSLR Nikon sells with the highest resolution of any DX camera. For the moment that is. Other upgrades using Sony’s 24mp sensor will follow soon – the D5200, the D320 ... What is just as strange is that more megapixels is hardly a priority for most of us. I have my D5100 set to M, which gives me 9mp images instead of 16.

Not that long ago, in 2005, Nikon sprang the D50 on a surprised world – the first sub $1000 DSLR. The D40 followed a year later with a price tag closer to $700, and made do without the screwdrive AF motor of the D50. It had a bigger LCD screen on a more compact body, and it forced Nikon to rsuh out a bunch of new AF-S lenses with inbuilt AF motors. There hasn't been much rushing since (see below).

Both the D50 and D40 made do with a 6mp sensor, which is ample resolution for most people. The firmware in the D40 was brilliant, and I still use mine today because the images have a certain quality that is hard to describe. Canon was pushing more megapixels, however, so a year later Nikon stuck the 10mp sensor from the D80 into the D40 and called it D40x. We lost 1/500 sec synch flash and a sweet shutter mechanism, and gained an ISO100 setting and a little more dynamic range.

Around 2010, Nikon produced the D3000, which added all kinds of fancy effects and video. The D3100 followed and now the D3200. The price is still about $700 for a basic kit, but this time you get a colour choice as well.

And lots more: compatibility with Nikon's new wireless mobile adapter, WU-1, for easy image sharing, a 3-inch 921,000-dot LCD monitor, and HD video at 24 and 30 fps with fulltime AF while recording. There’s even a microphone input jack for stereo recording, and HDMI output with CEC support. The camera can shoot up to 4 frames per second at the full 24-mp resolution, and there’s an 11-point autofocus system and a Scene Recognition system for accurate focus. What you still don’t get is an articulating screen.

There is a downside to cramming so many pixels onto an APS-C / DX sensor, as Ken Rockwell explains: ‘… the D3200 has higher linear resolution than any other DSLR ever made in any format: 255 pixels per millimeter. (The 36 MP D800 only has 200 pixels per millimeter in its larger FX format.) Since the diffraction limit at 255 lpmm is f/6.3, any shots made at f/6.3 or smaller will have their resolution completely limited by lens diffraction, not the camera.’ You have been warned.

The D3200 is simply one more step in the evolution that began with the D40. The image quality coming out of the new Sony bodies using this sensor is said to be superb, and the D3200 should do even better given that Nikon is better at getting the best out of Sony sensors than Sony. Then again, you could buy a second-hand D40 for next to nothing and get great images out of it too.

Click on the image to see a larger file

DPReview sums its preview up this way: ‘In terms of how you use the camera, the D3200 isn't a dramatic step forward for Nikon, but it fits comfortably into a series that has consistently offered some of the best beginners' DSLRs, so it's hard to blame Nikon for not wanting to change the recipe more than it has to.’

DX lenses - wake up, Nikon!

Along with the D3200, Nikon announced the new AF-S 28mm f/1.8G lens for about the same money. Very odd since it’s clearly designed for an FX body. Another recent Nikon lens is the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G, which is also meant to go on FX bodies to replace the superb old 50mm f/1.8D. To make up a full threesome, Nikon then added the AF-S 85mm f/1.8G, a small portrait lens for FX bodies.

Sure, you can use all of these on a D3200 or D40 since they have built-in AF motors, but the Field Of View will be screwed up by the 1.5 DX crop factor. So what has Nikon given us DX shooters of late? Very little by way of prime lenses. We’ve had the superb AF-S 35mm f/1.8G  (a great bargain at $200ish) since 2009, and it seems Nikon’s DX lens engineers have been asleep at their CAD screens ever since.

Nikon guru Thom Hogan agrees: ‘2009 was the last big push in DX. In the 2008/2009 time period we got the 16-85mm, 18-105mm, 35mm, 10-24mm, redesigned 18-200mm, and the strange 85mm Micro-Nikkor.' The only prime DX lens Nikon has released since then is the AF-S DX Micro 40mm f/2.8G, a lens I can’t imagine any Nikon shooter asking for.

What makes me say that? 40mm is too close for serious macro work (or micro as Nikon calls it) – you need 135 or more mm for that, and 200 + for live critters or you’ll scare them away. The only use for this lens is food photography, which is a highly specialised pro niche. For general work, the 40mm competes with the faster, cheaper 35mm. So Nikon has given us a pretty useless lens here since we already have the superb AF-S 60mm f/2.8G ED ($600) and the fair quality AF-S DX Micro 85mm f/3.5G ED VR ($500).

What we DX shooters really need is a prime lens in the 16-24mm range, and an ultra-wide prime around 10mm. Right now, the only way we can go wider than 35mm is with zoom lenses. As Thom Hogan concluded in the same post: ‘Lately it really feels like the wrong folk [at Nikon] are designing the wrong lenses for the wrong cameras.’ Is anyone at Nikon listening? http://www.bythom.com/

KIM

Nikon D5100 - all the camera you'll ever need?

The Nikon D800 may be the ultimate camera, producing images of breathtaking detail and clarity even in poor light, but perfect it isn’t. It’s too big to lug around, for one thing, unless you’re a pro shooter and have a van to cart all your photo gear around in. And the lenses are big too, and it has too many buttons and settings. And it costs several big bills.

The D5100 is just the right size, in fact it’s only a fraction bigger than my little old D40. OK, so you only get 16 megapixels, 4fps continuous shooting and a viewfinder that is a bit cramped compared to the D800. You can’t shoot in near dark situations with impunity either but how often do you need to do that?

The important thing is this: the D5100 is good enough to shoot at ISO 800 or 1200 without giving it a second thought. That covers most situations for most of us, and you get an articulated screen which comes in handy. (Click on the images below to see larger files)

The D5100 is just as good at catching the kids in action, nicely freezing the autumn leaves in the shot below.

So the D5100 doesn’t have a screw drive for auto-focusing older lenses, so what? We now have all the AF-S lenses (with inbuilt AF motors) we need, and plenty of third party choices. If you happen to have a lot of older lenses, you'd better choose a D7000 - it's a fair bit bigger and heavier though.

My modest lens collection includes

• AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX - Prime
• AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED DX - Macro
• AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF ED DX - walkabout
• AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR DX – small and light tele
• AF-S Nikkor 55-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF DX – bigger tele
• Sigma AF 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM – ultra-wide
• Lensbaby Composer

The 60mm macro and the Sigma set me back close to $600 each, but the rest of the lenses cost between $200 and $300 (the 18-70 is about $200 second-hand). It’s a big number, but 2 and a bit grand is not a huge amount to invest in a decent set of DSLR lenses. These lenses are not too big and heavy, so a couple of them will easily go along in the camera bag. These lenses will be compatible with future DX bodies, and there’s a strong market for them on eBay.

Here’s pretty difficult shot in a dark tunnel against the bright light outside

And what better way to finish up than with a lovely sunrise?

There you go!

Kim

 

 

Nikon D800 - digital photography reaches perfection

I’ve often cited DxOMark in my posts, the terrific website for camera image quality testing, to compare new camera sensors. Yesterday, DxOMark released its test of the new Nikon D800, and put out a press release announcing that this is ‘of now the best camera ever tested by DxOMark in terms of image quality.’ Remember, we’re talking about a $3000 camera here - http://trc.emv2.com/HM?a=ENX7CryREncg8SA9MKLR-3rnGHxKCapEvvcStGb5lw8W0bBhOG5mpqVsje_HxHAdaVFT

‘The new sensor in the D800 achieves the best dynamic range and the highest colour sensitivity ever measured, taking the lead on the DxOMark scale with 95 points,’ explained Dr. Frédéric Guichard, DxO Labs’ CTO. ‘This camera illustrates the consistent improvement that digital camera manufacturers have been able to achieve in the last few years, mimicking Moore’s law that has ruled the silicon industry for decades now.

‘Mining DxOMark data, one can see the amazing progress of sensor performance over the past decade, from the Canon 1Ds released in 2002 with a DxOMark Score of 63, to the Nikon D3 and the Canon 1Ds Mark III, which both reached a DxOMark Score of 80 in 2007 (+17, i.e. approx. one stop in sensitivity), and now the D800 that adds the equivalent of one more stop in sensitivity performance with a DxOMark Score of 95.

The press release also makes point that the Nikon D800 surpasses the best of the medium-format cameras, with a score that’s almost 1/3 of a stop higher than the Phase One IQ180 with its 80mp double-surface sensor - the best of them.

DxOMark hasn’t tested the Canon EOS-1D X as yet, which is strange seeing it came out before the D800. I suspect that this will further alienate Canon owners – as Mike Johnston at TOP points out, ‘of the top ten cameras in overall score on DxOMark, four are Nikons (and two are Pentaxes). But Canon doesn't have a single camera in the top 10. Canon's highest placed camera comes in at #13. In the top 20, Nikon has eight cameras; Canon, just two. (Sony has five.) Nikon's little entry-level DSLR, the D5100, comes in just above the vaunted (but outgoing) Canon 5D Mark II (evidently the Mark III hasn't been tested yet).

My own experience suggests that the DxO testing process favours Nikon sensors over Canon. I tested a Canon 2Ti/550D a while back, at a time when I had a Nikon D5000 (the D90 without the extras), and I thought it was too close to call, yet the DxOMark of the Nikon was much higher than that of the Canon. http://www.digital-photography-school.com/canon-eos-2ti550-review .

Here’s the image gallery I posted

http://briard.typepad.com/get_the_picture/canon-eos-550d-gallery.html

How far we’ve come in just over a decade

It’s easy to forget that Kodak, contrary to recent reports that the company was a victim of the rush to digital photography, was in fact digital’s pioneer for all of the nineties. Kodak made the sensors that drove the rush to digital. It borrowed Nikon bodies and lenses - the Kodak DCS 400 series was based on the N/F90 35mm film camera body. Kodak also used Canon bodies in the nineties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS

According to Wikipedia, the mid-nineties Kodal models included the 1.5-megapixel DCS 420 (August 1994), the 1.5-mpx DCS 410 (1996), and the 6.2-mp DCS 460 (March 1995). Kodak produced the first full frame camera with the DCS Pro 14n, which boasted a 14mp sensor. It sold for US$5,000. Memory and other upgrades followed, then the DCS Pro 14n was replaced by the DCS Pro SLR/n in 2004, and then Kodak lost interest.

Yes, that’s what happened. Kodak continued making full frame sensors for several years (actually, the 14mp full frame CMOS sensor was made by the Belgium company FillFactory and was produced by Tower Semiconductor in Israel), and then lost interest. That’s why Kodak went under. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs14n/

Nikon released its first DSLR in mid 1999: the D1, which was an F5 body with a 2.7 mp APS-C size sensor with a 1.5 crop factor - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1. The D1 was replaced by the D1H and D1X in February, 2001. The D1X featured a 5.3mp  sensor, while the D1H targeted action photographers, keeping the same 2.7 mp sensor but pushing the frame rate to 5 f/s for up to 40 consecutive shots.

Canon was busy dragging its feet at the time, and responded in 2001 with the EOS 1D which boasted a 4mp sensor with a 1.3 crop factor and other digital bits inside a body that looked like an EOS-1V film camera. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1d. Canon released its first full-frame DSLR – the EOS-1Ds - in the spring of 2003, less than 10 years ago and hot on the heels of Kodak.

Nikon didn’t make a full frame DSLR until 2007 when it popped out the D3, which put Nikon back on top of the professional totem pole. Five years later, Nikon seems to have dethroned Phase One, Hasselblad and Leica’s S2.

Kim

'What you see may not be real', by Chen Wen Ling. It's a good way to describe what happens on Wall Street every day. The sculpture is an interesting illustration of the Bull Market hitting the wall. Is that why it's called Wall St?
Kim

2012 Mirrorless / EVIL camera update

 Trying to keep up with this fashion parade ain’t easy

Lytro Light Field Camera

I’m starting with the most revolutionary because I mentioned it on release a few months ago. DPReview has now put the Lytro through its paces, and found it unconvincing ‘in terms of final resolution and the limited range of scenes its can bring something interesting to.’ The reviewer says ‘the final resolution of 1080 x 1080 is simply too low to make it useful for much more than Facebook. The lack of control over any shooting functions, including white balance can also spoil the results.’

I suspect the camera will appeal to the Facebook set, and they won’t care about the other stuff. Still, the technology will evolve and improve over time. The fact that the guys behind Lytro got this off the ground at all in such a short time is testament to their ability.

Nokia 808 PureView

I wrote about the exotic 41mp camera in the new Nokia 808 PureView smartphone not long ago. Here’s a video demonstrating it’s features:

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/videos/reviews/532169/nokia-808-pureview-hands-on-preview.html

Ricoh’s GXR system

The oldest EVIL system technically, given a whole new lease of life with the M-mount adaptor, which opens up a whole new world of lenses for this clever body. The only problem is that all these lenses are designed for 35mm film cameras. More detail here: http://briard.typepad.com/get_the_picture/2012/02/its-just-as-well-leica-has-lots-of-cachet.html

Samsung NX 200

This camera features a 20mp sensor, and Samsung pushes that detail for all it’s worth. DPReview found some issues with the camera’s image quality, but liked the 1080p HD movie mode with full manual control, fast playback and slow motion options. Samsung also throws in 7fps continuous shooting, a 30fps burst mode (at 5MP), a panorama mode and a selection of image filters and frames. Solid body, well-built.

Olympus E-M5

Retro cameras are in as Fuji has proved, and this is a digital copy of the once widely admired Olympus OM range of 35mm SLRs. The E-M5 will be sold alongside the PEN series and is obviously uses Micro Four Thirds lenses. The camera is actually slightly smaller than the tiny OM-4Ti it copies. The good news is that the E-M5 is built around a new 16MP Four Thirds sensor, most likely the one from Panasonic's DMC-G3.

 This addresses a long-standing issue of Olympus focusing on cosmetics rather than working on improving the sensor. Olympus claims improved dynamic range, which is its Achilles Heal. We shall see.

Fujifilm X-Pro 1

This new system is out of our league pricewise (close to 2 grand for the basics) but needs a mention as it is an EVIL style system and a serious glove thrown into the arrogant face of Leica. The Germans will be worried, I’m sure. Serious shooters will rejoice.

Luminous Landscape concluded its review this way: ‘A week with the X-Pro1 was not enough.  While it drove me mad on numerous occasions, it also thrilled me with its image quality and the possibility of a viable autofocus rangefinder-style camera. At roughly one-third of the price of an equivalent Leica system, the X-Pro1 is  amazing value, but still a significant investment. The verdict for now: the X-Pro1 is a quirky gem.’

Here are a few links for more detail:

http://www.f8photography.com.hk/blog/2012/03/streetxpro1/ 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/fuji_x_pro1_review.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/.shtml

Pentax K-01

This is a strange one. It looks like a clumsy toy camera but it isn’t. The body is really lumpy instead of slim, yet Pentax has designed ‘the world's thinnest interchangeable lens’ to go on the front. What a waste! Steve Huff has written a full review of the K-01 and comes away unconvinced http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/03/16/the-pentax-k-01-camera-review-design-masterpiece-or-design-fail/ 

  Canon G1X

This new camera almost went unnoticed in the post-Christmas rush, and it’s not an interchangeable lens camera either. It does have an APS-C size sensor, in what looks like a bulked-up G12 body. Canon says the G1X is the top of that line, and charges another $300. Too pricey, I suspect. It’s also top of the line in heft, coming in at a fairly lumpy 534g, and measuring 117 x 81 x 65mm. Not exactly pocket-size, and a lot bigger than it’s natural competitor the Fuji X10 with its fixed short zoom lens. Of course, the Canon is dearer, has a bigger sensor and better IQ.

Imaging Resource has found an internal light leakage problem with the G1X, check here

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/03/21/canon-g1-x-exhibits-light-leak-or-internal-reflection-in-certain-conditions

Interesting review here, comparing Canon to Toyota

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon_g1x_field_report.shtml

Panasonic GX1

Thom Hogan calls the GX1 ‘the missing GF3.’ Then he explains that ‘the rangefinder-style Panasonic cameras (GF1, GF2, GF3, and now GX1) did a strange little twist. They started with a very competent and enthusiast-targeted GF1, but then quickly downscaled into more entry-level models with each iteration. The GF3 is a nearly button-less camera clearly targeted at an entry user, while the GF1 has quite a few buttons and controls that appeal to a higher-level shooter. The GF2 fell exactly in the middle of those two.

The GX1 restores us to where the GF1 was, but with the 16mp sensor that's in the G3 DSLR-style camera. Indeed, comparing the GX1 and G3 is a good starting point, as they have a great deal of commonality to them.’

Are you confused yet? Clearly Panasonic is. DPReview praises the new 16mp sensor, which it claims narrows the gap between M43 and APS-C sensor cameras in low to mid ISO ranges. Add improved JPEG processing and the GX1 goes to the head of the M43 class. There are still issues with the GX1's 14-42mm power zoom kit lens option, so choose lenses carefully. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/GX1/GX1A.HTM

Sony Alpha A57

Strictly speaking the A57 doesn’t belong here. I should be talking about the Sony NEX-5N and NEX-7, but they’ve had plenty of exposure. We know all about them, right? The A57 is more interesting, because it’s not a DSLR. The pellicle mirror doesn’t have to move out of the way, which makes much faster continuous shooting possible – 10 – 12 frames per second (fps). The EVF is said to be an improvement over the traditional DSLR VF since it is WYSIWYG. Through it you can see the exact image with the settings you selected before you shoot. The live view is direct and covers 100% of the frame.

The A57 replaces the A55 and offers the Sony 16mp CMOS sensor with the latest BIONZ engine. The body is bigger and fits more comfortably into normal hands. The EVF is almost on par with that in the A77. The guys at Image Resource summed up the A57 this way: ‘Overall, we're pretty impressed with the Sony A57. It seems like an ideal camera for any kind of photography. I don't generally get jazzed about unusual modes like HDR, and I seldom go for resolution-enhancement technology, as is found in the Clear Image Zoom function, but I'll still give it a try. What's most impressive is having access to 12 or even 10 frames per second in a sub-$800 camera. Add full-time autofocus while you shoot movies or stills, and the Sony A57 has what it takes to run the other guys over. And while it seemed gimmicky a few years ago, I really enjoy sweeping out a panoramic image without much thought or effort, something the Sony A57 makes easy. We'll reserve final judgment for a production unit, but so far, this is Sony's most competent consumer camera offering ever, one that should give the big two camera makers chills.’

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a57/sony-a57A.HTM

It’s about time CANIKON had some serious competition. If you feel like checking out Sony’s new wares, have a look at the SLT a65 as well. It’s not much dearer than the A57, and packs most of the goodies the A77 introduced into a non-rugged body. More here: http://briard.typepad.com/get_the_picture/2011/09/sonys-new-slt-giant-killer.html

Kim

Raw vs JPEG? If you have to ask, shoot JPEG

Real photographers shoot raw, don't they?

I can’t help a smirk when I read reviewers deploring that some digicam or other doesn’t have the ability to shoot raw files. For those of you who’ve led sheltered lives, raw files are the unprocessed image files. JPEG files have been processed in your camera by the little men in residence there.

Frankly, the idea of processing raw files from digicams is a lot like trying to cook a gourmet meal using McDonalds meat and potatoes. With entry-level DSLRs or EVIL cameras, there is a bit more point to the exercise but I still suspect it’s mostly a waste of effort. What are you going to do with those images? Submit them to photo magazines or competitions? Exhibit them in an art gallery? Print 3 foot by 2 foot posters and frame them?

Unless you shoot images for those reasons, you’re wasting time and effort. If you need raw, shoot raw. If you want to shoot raw, shoot raw. If you have your workflow all set up for raw, and you don’t mind the extra processing load and disk space you need on your camera and PC, by all means shoot raw. Likewise, if you're fond of extensive PP manipulation, shoot raw files.

What so good about shooting raw?

In a nutshell, raw files contain more image detail:

• the complete, lossless data from the camera’s sensor
• At least 12-bit color for each Red, Green and Blue (36-bits per location)
• Uncompressed images – an 16mp sensor will produce 20-30mb raw files
• Higher dynamic range
• More options in post processing, such as changing the white balance.

The downside is that shooting raw doesn’t actually produce usable image files, until you convert them to an image format (GIF or JPEG and so on). You can’t even view the images on basic image viewers and photo editors and, when you see the images, they look flat and washed out and lack sharpness. They need a fair bit of processing.

What’s so good about shooting JPEG?

Camera makers have drastically improved their in-camera processing firmware. They’ve invested heavily in developing their image processing technologies, which represent much of their Intellectual Property – systems such as Canon's DIGIC, Nikon's EXPEED and Fujifim's EXR do a pretty good job these days in optimising the images you take.

This is pretty well straight out of the camera, my old D40 I think. Click on the image to see a larger file.

JPEGs

• Are readable by any image program out there, even free ones
• Produce smaller, more manageable file sizes (6-8mb for an 16mp sensor)
• Are higher in contrast, sharper and with better colour saturation
• Don’t need much work before printing, sharing, or posting on the web
• Offer a great deal of flexibility in post processing.

The JPEG format compresses down to 8-bits per color, but you’d need a great pair of eyes to spot the difference. Today’s JPEG algorithms are very good at stripping out redundant data the human eye can’t perceive. And a quick note on ‘lossless’ editing: If you save your edited JPEGs under another name or in another file, which is the obvious thing to do, then the original remains unchanged.

I shoot JPEGs most of the time, in fact I also choose ‘medium’ size for my image files. On my Nikon D5100, that cuts the megapixel count from 16 to 9mp (3696 x 2448), and the files sizes tend to range from 3 to 5 megabytes. Plenty of detail there for most of my photographic needs, and everything is faster this way, from continuous shooting to viewing images to post processing. I also get far more shots on one SD card, or a given hard disk.

Exceptions

I shoot raw when I want Black & White images to come out as good as possible. Here, raw really gives you noticeably more flexibility than JPEG, probably because the camera makers have ignored this aspect of their image processing firmware (since most of their customers never shoot B&W. This is true most of all with images that contain lots of colour gradients or dense layers of hues and tones.

Other exceptions might be important family photos on special occasions like graduations and other ceremonies, or portraits of family or friends which are always difficult. In these situations, you may want maximum flexibility. Apart from those occasions, the simplest advice is that given by Nikon guru Ken Rockwell: If you have to ask, shoot JPEG. Here’s Ken’s take on the subject: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Kim