Products
Apo-Telyt-M 1:3.4/135mm
15/02/09 21:49
Since the introduction of the M8 and M8.2. Leica discourages the use of the Apo-Telyt-M 1:3.4/135mm. That is a pity. This lens delivers outstandingly good imagery and a very pleasant perspective. The low magnification of the M8 and M8.2 is cited as the reason for not being able to use the 135mm lens. This is true and tests with the Apo-Telyt on the M8 and M8.2 delivered very disappointing results, even when using the 1.25 magnifier. Now I also have the 1.4 magnifier and I put both on the camera. This is possible and then you get a magnification of 1.85. Contrast of the finder patch drops, but is still quite good. Testing the lens now on a Siemens star target delivered very good results wide open at 3.4 up to the Nyquist limit. (65 lp/mm).
There is a caveat however: the infinity setting is often not OK, but for closer distances it may work quite well.
Results may vary with any lens/camera combo, but it is certainly worth trying.
There is a caveat however: the infinity setting is often not OK, but for closer distances it may work quite well.
Results may vary with any lens/camera combo, but it is certainly worth trying.
|
Parameter shift
05/12/08 16:17
The introduction of the Nikon D3X with 24+ Mp sensor indicates the emergence of a new era in sensor based photography. Sony and Canon already have 35mm sized capture elements with 20+ Million pixels and now Nikon follows. It is evident that these three companies want to become the masters of the photographic universe. Canon’s 50D with 15 Mp points the way to a 30+ Mp sensor in the next generation Canon camera-types. Whether there s a real need for these levels of resolution might be a debatable topic, but fact is that the band-wagon-effect will force others to compete to stay in the market.
With these new capture devices we enter the classical domain of high definition photography. In the era of film based photography, we had three levels of film speeds: high speed (ISO 400 and above) for general photography, medium speed (ISO 64 to ISO125) for art photography and high quality imagery and low speed (ISO 15 to ISO 25) for high resolution photography when big enlargements and the reproduction of extremely fine detail was required.
The HD type of photography never became very popular, not only because of the slow speed, but primarily because of the very high demands on the equipment and expertise of the photographer. When you need to record details at the 100 lp/mm level, a very stable tripod, outstandingly good optics, low level tolerance manufactured camera bodies, accurate focusing among others are mandatory.
The new generation of high definition digital cameras offer a much higher speed combined with high resolution. Therefore one of the main problems of the past has been solved. But all others are still factors that influence image quality. You need a sturdy tripod in most cases. A high sensor speed and vibration reduction technology may help hand held shooting, but is not always the optimum solution. The two big problems that cannot be overlooked are optical quality and the accuracy of auto focus. Especially the AF technology lags behind the demands of high definition photography, but lens performance is equally important as a parameter.
Manufacturing tolerances may become a major factor, as the imaging chain as all components in the camera must be positioned at the exact places. LIve View technology could help, as you focus on the sensor surface in this case. But the camera displays are too rough to note small deviations for the true focus position.
The new Nikon has a pixel size of 5.5 micron. That allows for a resolution of 91 linepairs/mm, which is very high (still below the low speed films that operate in the 100-200 lp/mm class), but more than enough for almost every photographic assignment. There are only a few lenses in the Nikon stable that can record details at this level with good contrast and then only at smaller apertures. These lenses can be found in the best long telelens section, but these lenses can be used only on tripod to exploit the inherent capabilities.
One might argue that the in-camera processing software and the post-processing programs can extract every possible detail from the capture file, but when interpolation becomes a lucky guess, the quality of definition will deteriorate.
This state of affairs has an important impact on the method of testing and the interpretation of the results.It is common knowledge, I assume, that all testing now is executed with a camera-lens combination, a range of test charts and subsequent software development of the image file. The quality of the test charts and the quality of the development programs are very important parameters for the final evaluation of the system performance. As far as I know, these input-output parameters have never been subjected to stringent comparative analyses and given the wide range of manipulations that is possible, the single results are not very reliable when compared to each other. This wide latitude in methodical approach might be responsible for the widely diverging opinions and test results on and off the web of the same camera-lens system.
The German magazine Color Photo is obsessively occupied with numerical analysis and comparison of camera-lens pairs. While the general usability of the test results is highly debatable, they do work in a thorough teutonic fashion, which implies that the results can be compared. The major finding of several years of testing is the conclusion that any camera-lens combination generates different results: camera A and lens A are different form camera B and lens A and camera A with lens B. The same lens performs very good on one camera body but not on another and the same body gets good results with some lens but not with another lens. The conclusions then are valid only for this particular lens-camera combo.
On the other hand we see that minor numerical differences are promoted as significant differences in photographic quality, which is not true.
Now with the new generation of sensors we have to add yet another factor of unreliability to the imaging chain: the AF factor. We know from careful testing that AF is not accurate and reliable for high definition photography. But all testing assumes that AF will produce accurate results.
The conclusion then is that with this new HR dSLR (high resolution camera), the testing is dependent on the assumption that AF is good enough and that the lens is good enough. Both assumptions are not valid unless proven by independent testing, which is not possible as the variation in manufacturing tolerances will always put a spoke in the tester’s wheel.
It is illuminating that the obsession with equipment testing is confined to the domain of 35mm photography (film and solid state). In the past the medium format aficionados never were impressed with numerical testing as the surplus of image quality was so big that fine tuning and ultimate testing was no issue. The same now happens with the digital backs, where you will not see the amount and extent of testing that is normal in 35mm photography.
Might this kind of reasoning sit behind Leica’s decision to create a new professional format with the S2? Leica claims that they will implement an AF system with high accuracy.
With these new capture devices we enter the classical domain of high definition photography. In the era of film based photography, we had three levels of film speeds: high speed (ISO 400 and above) for general photography, medium speed (ISO 64 to ISO125) for art photography and high quality imagery and low speed (ISO 15 to ISO 25) for high resolution photography when big enlargements and the reproduction of extremely fine detail was required.
The HD type of photography never became very popular, not only because of the slow speed, but primarily because of the very high demands on the equipment and expertise of the photographer. When you need to record details at the 100 lp/mm level, a very stable tripod, outstandingly good optics, low level tolerance manufactured camera bodies, accurate focusing among others are mandatory.
The new generation of high definition digital cameras offer a much higher speed combined with high resolution. Therefore one of the main problems of the past has been solved. But all others are still factors that influence image quality. You need a sturdy tripod in most cases. A high sensor speed and vibration reduction technology may help hand held shooting, but is not always the optimum solution. The two big problems that cannot be overlooked are optical quality and the accuracy of auto focus. Especially the AF technology lags behind the demands of high definition photography, but lens performance is equally important as a parameter.
Manufacturing tolerances may become a major factor, as the imaging chain as all components in the camera must be positioned at the exact places. LIve View technology could help, as you focus on the sensor surface in this case. But the camera displays are too rough to note small deviations for the true focus position.
The new Nikon has a pixel size of 5.5 micron. That allows for a resolution of 91 linepairs/mm, which is very high (still below the low speed films that operate in the 100-200 lp/mm class), but more than enough for almost every photographic assignment. There are only a few lenses in the Nikon stable that can record details at this level with good contrast and then only at smaller apertures. These lenses can be found in the best long telelens section, but these lenses can be used only on tripod to exploit the inherent capabilities.
One might argue that the in-camera processing software and the post-processing programs can extract every possible detail from the capture file, but when interpolation becomes a lucky guess, the quality of definition will deteriorate.
This state of affairs has an important impact on the method of testing and the interpretation of the results.It is common knowledge, I assume, that all testing now is executed with a camera-lens combination, a range of test charts and subsequent software development of the image file. The quality of the test charts and the quality of the development programs are very important parameters for the final evaluation of the system performance. As far as I know, these input-output parameters have never been subjected to stringent comparative analyses and given the wide range of manipulations that is possible, the single results are not very reliable when compared to each other. This wide latitude in methodical approach might be responsible for the widely diverging opinions and test results on and off the web of the same camera-lens system.
The German magazine Color Photo is obsessively occupied with numerical analysis and comparison of camera-lens pairs. While the general usability of the test results is highly debatable, they do work in a thorough teutonic fashion, which implies that the results can be compared. The major finding of several years of testing is the conclusion that any camera-lens combination generates different results: camera A and lens A are different form camera B and lens A and camera A with lens B. The same lens performs very good on one camera body but not on another and the same body gets good results with some lens but not with another lens. The conclusions then are valid only for this particular lens-camera combo.
On the other hand we see that minor numerical differences are promoted as significant differences in photographic quality, which is not true.
Now with the new generation of sensors we have to add yet another factor of unreliability to the imaging chain: the AF factor. We know from careful testing that AF is not accurate and reliable for high definition photography. But all testing assumes that AF will produce accurate results.
The conclusion then is that with this new HR dSLR (high resolution camera), the testing is dependent on the assumption that AF is good enough and that the lens is good enough. Both assumptions are not valid unless proven by independent testing, which is not possible as the variation in manufacturing tolerances will always put a spoke in the tester’s wheel.
It is illuminating that the obsession with equipment testing is confined to the domain of 35mm photography (film and solid state). In the past the medium format aficionados never were impressed with numerical testing as the surplus of image quality was so big that fine tuning and ultimate testing was no issue. The same now happens with the digital backs, where you will not see the amount and extent of testing that is normal in 35mm photography.
Might this kind of reasoning sit behind Leica’s decision to create a new professional format with the S2? Leica claims that they will implement an AF system with high accuracy.
New Leica lenses: some thoughts
17/09/08 21:02
The new Leica lenses, especially the Noctilux and Summilux designs cannot be more different from the previous introduction of the Summarit range. The Summarits are designed to give excellent performance at relatively modest apertures and to be manufactured in a more economical way. ‘ Modest’ is relative too, as an aperture of 2.5 is still quite wide. Hardly anyone draws attention to the fact that Leica M lenses are generally very compact and as I noted elsewhere, the trade-off between performance and small size is extremely important. When you have unrestricted volume to work with, it is less demanding to create a fine lens. The Summarit range is generally quite compact and this one of the virtues.
The 21 and 24 Summilux designs are really compact, given the physical parameters (21 and 1.4 and 24 and 1.4, both with a back focal length of about 28mm). These boundary conditions place a heavy demand on the design, especially if one wants excellent quality wide open. The 21 and 24 ‘lux versions are heavy, not only because of the all metal mounts, but also because the cramped space is fully occupied by glass elements. You cannot simply push 10 elements into a tube and expect good performance. The basic challenge is to optimize the space between the individual lens elements or groups and keep the total cell length to a minimum.
The centre of the stage is being occupied by the Noctilux, presumably because of the 0.95 aperture, seen as an optical barrier. The true optical barrier is the 0.7 aperture by the way. It goes without saying that a 0.95 aperture for a 50mm lens is spectacular, especially when the image quality at that aperture is for all intents and purposes fully useable.
From the perspective of the demands on an optical design, the 1.4/21 is more impressive. The total energy flow through a lens dictates the level of aberrations and the extent of the countermeasures of the designer to combat the light rays. The energy flow is the result of two parameters: aperture and field of view. The 0.95/50 has the same level of energy transport as a 1.4/21 (twice the field of view and half the aperture). The wide angle design has to cope in addition with significant distortion and the fact that the ‘lux 21 has only a few percentage points of distortion without compromising the other quality aspects is most impressive.In my view this Summilux 1.4/21 is a better example of the designer’s craft than the Noctilux 0.95/50.
No one has ever tried to design a high performance high speed 21mm lens for the 35mm format before and not without good reason.
Add to this feat the fact that the lens is quite compact and you can appreciate the almost superhuman effort to set this lens on the table.
The 21 and 24 Summilux designs are really compact, given the physical parameters (21 and 1.4 and 24 and 1.4, both with a back focal length of about 28mm). These boundary conditions place a heavy demand on the design, especially if one wants excellent quality wide open. The 21 and 24 ‘lux versions are heavy, not only because of the all metal mounts, but also because the cramped space is fully occupied by glass elements. You cannot simply push 10 elements into a tube and expect good performance. The basic challenge is to optimize the space between the individual lens elements or groups and keep the total cell length to a minimum.
The centre of the stage is being occupied by the Noctilux, presumably because of the 0.95 aperture, seen as an optical barrier. The true optical barrier is the 0.7 aperture by the way. It goes without saying that a 0.95 aperture for a 50mm lens is spectacular, especially when the image quality at that aperture is for all intents and purposes fully useable.
From the perspective of the demands on an optical design, the 1.4/21 is more impressive. The total energy flow through a lens dictates the level of aberrations and the extent of the countermeasures of the designer to combat the light rays. The energy flow is the result of two parameters: aperture and field of view. The 0.95/50 has the same level of energy transport as a 1.4/21 (twice the field of view and half the aperture). The wide angle design has to cope in addition with significant distortion and the fact that the ‘lux 21 has only a few percentage points of distortion without compromising the other quality aspects is most impressive.In my view this Summilux 1.4/21 is a better example of the designer’s craft than the Noctilux 0.95/50.
No one has ever tried to design a high performance high speed 21mm lens for the 35mm format before and not without good reason.
Add to this feat the fact that the lens is quite compact and you can appreciate the almost superhuman effort to set this lens on the table.
Can we survive without a 135 size sensor?
10/09/08 20:05
The new Sony Alpha 900 has a large 24.6 Mp sensor that sports the old (?) 135 format of film designation: the 24 x 36mm size negative. The camera has interesting specs, but this product will be classified as a Minolta 9000 and will presumably share this predecessors fate: it gets credit from the press and other reviewers for its capabilities, quality and professional profile. The old Minolta 9000 got equal praise and comments, but when you have to put your money on the table, most people will go for the safe option: Nikon or Canon. The Minolta 9000 was undoubtedly a top-class camera and certainly a mile stone product. The A900 might be categorized in the same class, but then and now the sales volume did not warrant a long term presence in the market.
Undoubtedly a new Nikon D?? will receive the same sensor, but at twice the price it will not be a direct competitor.
Let us hope the A 900 will fare better in current market conditions than the old A9000. Competition is really needed to revive the market.
The upcoming new Canon 5D II will have a 18 Mp sensor and a 135 format too. The high end market then will be populated by cameras with 135 format sensor and pixel amounts from 12 to 24 million.
The really important question is whether the current crop of lenses can handle such massive amount of pixels with pixel pitches around 5 micron. You might question the capabilities of most lenses to even resolve half of these. The cutoff limit of the sensor filters will restrict the maximum resolution in any case. The resulting RAW file sizes will be 50 to 100 Mb and then the question is who needs these sizes and who can handle them.
The Nikon option with 12 Mp is still the best proposal for the moment. Basically we have the choice between a high contrast, moderate resolution high speed sensor (Tri-X) and a lower contrast, high resolution. lower speed film like Pan-X. Looking at the Kodak site, where you can still find (with some trouble) current film types, Tri-X is still riding high ands slow speed films are gone. What will be the best bet for the camera that will be optimal for picture taking?
All magazines in the past raved about the capabilities of slow speed films, but none survived (the new microfilms occupy a niche).
It would be nice if you could have a sensor in 135 format and a choice of using 24 or 12 Mp while keeping the full dimensions. The current option of using less pixels implies a smaller format and that is not what we want.
Without a 135 sensor size no company can survive today’s rat race. We have to wait for Pentax and Leica to lay the cards on the table. Both are very reputable companies with a great tradition and a knack for solid long term solutions.
Undoubtedly a new Nikon D?? will receive the same sensor, but at twice the price it will not be a direct competitor.
Let us hope the A 900 will fare better in current market conditions than the old A9000. Competition is really needed to revive the market.
The upcoming new Canon 5D II will have a 18 Mp sensor and a 135 format too. The high end market then will be populated by cameras with 135 format sensor and pixel amounts from 12 to 24 million.
The really important question is whether the current crop of lenses can handle such massive amount of pixels with pixel pitches around 5 micron. You might question the capabilities of most lenses to even resolve half of these. The cutoff limit of the sensor filters will restrict the maximum resolution in any case. The resulting RAW file sizes will be 50 to 100 Mb and then the question is who needs these sizes and who can handle them.
The Nikon option with 12 Mp is still the best proposal for the moment. Basically we have the choice between a high contrast, moderate resolution high speed sensor (Tri-X) and a lower contrast, high resolution. lower speed film like Pan-X. Looking at the Kodak site, where you can still find (with some trouble) current film types, Tri-X is still riding high ands slow speed films are gone. What will be the best bet for the camera that will be optimal for picture taking?
All magazines in the past raved about the capabilities of slow speed films, but none survived (the new microfilms occupy a niche).
It would be nice if you could have a sensor in 135 format and a choice of using 24 or 12 Mp while keeping the full dimensions. The current option of using less pixels implies a smaller format and that is not what we want.
Without a 135 sensor size no company can survive today’s rat race. We have to wait for Pentax and Leica to lay the cards on the table. Both are very reputable companies with a great tradition and a knack for solid long term solutions.
History revisited
25/08/08 19:37
It seems that the cards have been dealt in the world of photographic products. The success of the new generation of Nikon cameras is undeniable and in its wake the stature of the Barnack format as the standard for the future sensor size has been firmly established. Known as the full-format chip or FF-sensor (in fact not the best choice as a designator, technically spoken), the 24 x 36mm sensor is the benchmark for all current and future digital cameras. Whether this format is really required or needed is no longer a question, it is simply a fact. Olympus bravely tried to topple the dominance of the classical film size. The FourThird format has its technical and optical advantages, but is simply is not what we need or want.
At first it was Canon (as usual taking the role of innovator) whose products redefined the scene, but one might say that with the 20 Mb sensor the limit for practical photography had been reached. Many users complain about the unwieldy file-sizes that are generated. Nikon took a more sensible approach and restricted the size to 12 Mb. In fact the classical choice between a high speed film with less resolution (Tri-X) and a low speed film with high resolution (Technical Pan). The TP does not exist anymore, but TX is still going strong.
There is no question that Nikon will introduce a 20+ megapixel sensor (presumably the same that is being used by Sony in the upcoming ‘900’ model. The additional Nikon model (coded as D3X) is required stuff to cover the top end of the market, but more out of prestige than out of necessity.
Sony will want such a camera to signal their seriousness for the professional up-market domain. But the Sony products, however cleverly marketed are Minolta’s in disguise and just as in the past, the Minolta camera line was always a B-side product. In the past, Canon and Nikon were the two companies that mattered with Pentax a good second choice (and yes the Leica as a choice out of passion). If you really need a big sized negative (sorry, a large image file) you had and have the Hasselblad and the other big format products.
In that photographic past, Nikon was the professional choice par excellence. The range of Nikon products for the enthusiast or even fanatical amateur was very limited if not non-existant. Canon on the other hand was very strong in the amateur market with some inroads in the professional market. This changed with the introduction of the fine F-series of cameras, but this camera never broke the dominance of Nikon.
We see this same market segmentation today. Canon is unbeatable in the range that is covered by the 1000D to the 40D/5D and vulnerable in the 1Dx series. Nikon is for now the champion of the 24x36mm sized digital sensor with the D3 and D700 and there are so many gaps in this number game that it is reasonable to expect more products with the same sensor size as soon as scale economies will have its effects on price and cost.
This simple choice matrix (APS-C or 24x36mm and 12 Mp versus 20Mp and Nikon versus Canon) will make obsolete the current obsession (as exemplified by the dpreview approach) with the comparison of endless feature lists (see my comment about the infantile consumer). These lists of features are compiled with the assumption that more features are always to be preferred. But counting features is the simple alternative to really in-depth reviews that take time to compile and take time to read and digest. Water will become the scarcest resource in the near future (not oil!), but time will be a good second and with it the ability to cope with TIO (total information overload).
Am I ready to buy a Nikon? No, I am sitting on my hands, waiting for Leica to introduce the rangefinder camera that will have as much impact on the world as the M3 once had (an impossible task? Maybe, but without hope we are all lost).
And in the meantime I am comparing Ilford Delta100 and Kodak T_Max 100 in the very classical CG512 developer. And I am printing images developed with Aperture and Silver Efex Pro on baryta paper in the Epson 3800. Still living in two worlds. And I am very impressed by the Silverfast DC program.
At first it was Canon (as usual taking the role of innovator) whose products redefined the scene, but one might say that with the 20 Mb sensor the limit for practical photography had been reached. Many users complain about the unwieldy file-sizes that are generated. Nikon took a more sensible approach and restricted the size to 12 Mb. In fact the classical choice between a high speed film with less resolution (Tri-X) and a low speed film with high resolution (Technical Pan). The TP does not exist anymore, but TX is still going strong.
There is no question that Nikon will introduce a 20+ megapixel sensor (presumably the same that is being used by Sony in the upcoming ‘900’ model. The additional Nikon model (coded as D3X) is required stuff to cover the top end of the market, but more out of prestige than out of necessity.
Sony will want such a camera to signal their seriousness for the professional up-market domain. But the Sony products, however cleverly marketed are Minolta’s in disguise and just as in the past, the Minolta camera line was always a B-side product. In the past, Canon and Nikon were the two companies that mattered with Pentax a good second choice (and yes the Leica as a choice out of passion). If you really need a big sized negative (sorry, a large image file) you had and have the Hasselblad and the other big format products.
In that photographic past, Nikon was the professional choice par excellence. The range of Nikon products for the enthusiast or even fanatical amateur was very limited if not non-existant. Canon on the other hand was very strong in the amateur market with some inroads in the professional market. This changed with the introduction of the fine F-series of cameras, but this camera never broke the dominance of Nikon.
We see this same market segmentation today. Canon is unbeatable in the range that is covered by the 1000D to the 40D/5D and vulnerable in the 1Dx series. Nikon is for now the champion of the 24x36mm sized digital sensor with the D3 and D700 and there are so many gaps in this number game that it is reasonable to expect more products with the same sensor size as soon as scale economies will have its effects on price and cost.
This simple choice matrix (APS-C or 24x36mm and 12 Mp versus 20Mp and Nikon versus Canon) will make obsolete the current obsession (as exemplified by the dpreview approach) with the comparison of endless feature lists (see my comment about the infantile consumer). These lists of features are compiled with the assumption that more features are always to be preferred. But counting features is the simple alternative to really in-depth reviews that take time to compile and take time to read and digest. Water will become the scarcest resource in the near future (not oil!), but time will be a good second and with it the ability to cope with TIO (total information overload).
Am I ready to buy a Nikon? No, I am sitting on my hands, waiting for Leica to introduce the rangefinder camera that will have as much impact on the world as the M3 once had (an impossible task? Maybe, but without hope we are all lost).
And in the meantime I am comparing Ilford Delta100 and Kodak T_Max 100 in the very classical CG512 developer. And I am printing images developed with Aperture and Silver Efex Pro on baryta paper in the Epson 3800. Still living in two worlds. And I am very impressed by the Silverfast DC program.
More time for testreports please!
17/08/08 20:55
In a recent issue of the German magazine “Photographie” the new Hasselblad with 50 Mb sensor size has been described and commented upon. On one page you will find several misconceptions: it is stated that the 50 million pixels on the sensor allow the recording of an A4 page at 2.5 kilometers distance. This is of course an ambiguous statement: does this imply the outlines of that page or the text on that page. The angular resolution of the eye is approximately one minute of arc. This amounts to 2.9 cm at a distance of 100 meters and 29 cm at a distance of 1000 meters or one km. At 2.5 kilometers the eye can separate objects that are about 75 cm apart. But the number of pixels in itself is not related to this calculation. It is the size of the pixel. For the Hasselblad this is stated as 6 micron. This size of pixel is not uncommon for many high end cameras, like the newer Nikon and Canon products. The pixel pitch for the DX sensor is 5.5 micron and for the FX sensor it is 8.45 micron. All things being equal at the same distance any sensor with a 6 micron pixel pitch will be able to record the same level of detail. A bigger sensor may be able to capture a bigger part of the scene, but not finer details.
The text also mentions that the smaller pixel size allows a faster frame rate: this is wrong again: now the total size determines the throughput of the system, not the pixel size. The smaller pixelsize will, according to the text, improve color reproduction and allow faster shutter speeds and reduces battery load.
Such factual errors are not uncommon in the popular press. But even more common are the language twists that are required to differentiate between comparable products. In the same issue of Photographie there is a comparison between the D300, D700 and D3. These three cameras cover overlapping domains and it is really difficult to define a suitable profile. Then the author has to use poetics to get to the point; the D3 is a fascinating all-round camera, and the D700 compact all-round camera and the D300 is a compact universal camera. I wonder what to make of these descriptions.
The more general point I wish to make here is the fact that the short product cycles of current products and the fact that so many cameras are competing with each other and have to described instantly as they appear on the market. The fast pace and global coverage of the internet forces one to create instant tests and reviews. If your report or review would become available six months after the introduction of the camera, no one would want to read it and you will loose readership or a reduction of website its. Both are bad for advertisers. So you swim with the masses and do an overnight report.
Yesterday I bought secondhand a copy of Crawley’s Canon F1 book. I am amazed at the depth of this report, but also at the length of time it took to publish. In those days one had the leisurely pace of a year to report on a product. It would be really nice if one could have time to report on a camera in depth: to really understand a camera like the Nikon D3 or even d700 or Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H3DII-50 or for that matter an M8 one needs several months of uninterrupted use and reporting. After that period of time one would be able to make more meaningful and insightful remarks about the true character and the true profile of a high grade camera or lens or accessory.
Even now after two years use of the M8, new aspects are appearing that you cannot find after a few days of handling the camera. And the same happens with other cameras too. The hurried reviews that are the norm now do the general public a disservice.
The text also mentions that the smaller pixel size allows a faster frame rate: this is wrong again: now the total size determines the throughput of the system, not the pixel size. The smaller pixelsize will, according to the text, improve color reproduction and allow faster shutter speeds and reduces battery load.
Such factual errors are not uncommon in the popular press. But even more common are the language twists that are required to differentiate between comparable products. In the same issue of Photographie there is a comparison between the D300, D700 and D3. These three cameras cover overlapping domains and it is really difficult to define a suitable profile. Then the author has to use poetics to get to the point; the D3 is a fascinating all-round camera, and the D700 compact all-round camera and the D300 is a compact universal camera. I wonder what to make of these descriptions.
The more general point I wish to make here is the fact that the short product cycles of current products and the fact that so many cameras are competing with each other and have to described instantly as they appear on the market. The fast pace and global coverage of the internet forces one to create instant tests and reviews. If your report or review would become available six months after the introduction of the camera, no one would want to read it and you will loose readership or a reduction of website its. Both are bad for advertisers. So you swim with the masses and do an overnight report.
Yesterday I bought secondhand a copy of Crawley’s Canon F1 book. I am amazed at the depth of this report, but also at the length of time it took to publish. In those days one had the leisurely pace of a year to report on a product. It would be really nice if one could have time to report on a camera in depth: to really understand a camera like the Nikon D3 or even d700 or Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H3DII-50 or for that matter an M8 one needs several months of uninterrupted use and reporting. After that period of time one would be able to make more meaningful and insightful remarks about the true character and the true profile of a high grade camera or lens or accessory.
Even now after two years use of the M8, new aspects are appearing that you cannot find after a few days of handling the camera. And the same happens with other cameras too. The hurried reviews that are the norm now do the general public a disservice.
Micro Four Thirds
12/08/08 17:24
Olympus and Panasonic recently introduced a second version of the Four Thirds technique, the Micro Four Thirds (MFT). It utilizes the same sensor size as every other FT-camera, but the body has been designed without a mirror box, allowing a shorter flange back distance to be used. Olympus obviously has studied the sales figures and camera trends and noted several things: (1) the offensive with the E-series to invite professional imagers to adopt the FT format as a serious instrument competing with ‘normal’ dSLR cameras with APS-C and 135-format sensors has petered out. The E-3, inherently a very capable camera, did not catch on as a professional tool. (2) the extremely positive reviews of the Sigma DP1 (disregarding the actual shortcomings of that model) and (3) the good sales results for the small E-xxx series (especially the 420 and 520 models). The conclusion they reached must have been: there is room for more compact high quality cameras with interchangeable lenses (anyone noting the bulk and weight of the pro-dSLR?) and it is here that the small FT format can score points. The technique of Live View (when it matures to a useable tool) can indeed dispense with the mirror and pentaprism of the ‘classical’ slr concept.
The redirection of the scope and design of the FT format also rings the death-knell of the professional E-3 model which will linger on as a flagship presumably.
We will have to wait for real camera models to assess the true potential of this move. To claim that “Today's announcement of the Micro Four Thirds system is arguably the most significant camera-related announcement of the year.” might be a bit premature. The introduction of a new camera concept is fraught with problems and history suggests that it is hardly successful: witness the half-frame format (Olympus too), the Kodak disc system, the APS system and so on. Camera buyers are a very conservative lot and need a long period before they adopt a new camera system.
On the other hand the concept looks quite convincing: a compact camera we all want, when high quality interchangeable lenses can be used, this is even better and a good useable Live View system is certainly an additional positive aspect. Several years ago I concluded that the FT format might become the start of a modern age Barnack camera. This prediction seems to become reality now: When we would not know better,what would we think of a compact non-slr camera system with high-quality interchangeable lenses, short distance between capture surface and lens bayonet flange? Adding the coupled rangefinder we would surely conclude that this could be a new Leica camera. Live View is not to confused with a CRF system, but as a modern day alternative it just might, were it not for its cumbersome viewing method.
The redirection of the scope and design of the FT format also rings the death-knell of the professional E-3 model which will linger on as a flagship presumably.
We will have to wait for real camera models to assess the true potential of this move. To claim that “Today's announcement of the Micro Four Thirds system is arguably the most significant camera-related announcement of the year.” might be a bit premature. The introduction of a new camera concept is fraught with problems and history suggests that it is hardly successful: witness the half-frame format (Olympus too), the Kodak disc system, the APS system and so on. Camera buyers are a very conservative lot and need a long period before they adopt a new camera system.
On the other hand the concept looks quite convincing: a compact camera we all want, when high quality interchangeable lenses can be used, this is even better and a good useable Live View system is certainly an additional positive aspect. Several years ago I concluded that the FT format might become the start of a modern age Barnack camera. This prediction seems to become reality now: When we would not know better,what would we think of a compact non-slr camera system with high-quality interchangeable lenses, short distance between capture surface and lens bayonet flange? Adding the coupled rangefinder we would surely conclude that this could be a new Leica camera. Live View is not to confused with a CRF system, but as a modern day alternative it just might, were it not for its cumbersome viewing method.