• 
Lloyd's recommendations for:
SSD • Hard drives • Memory
from trusted vendor OWC
For reviews, please visit:
Mac Performance Guide
I almost have to laugh: Nikon D2H files from 2004 are smaller than the downsampled Retina-grade images that I regularly present in my publications today—an actual pixels image won’t even fill my 30-inch display! Still, 4 megapixels got the job done with the right subject.
Posted in DAP are some actual pixels Eagles examples for perspective on 2004 resolution.
Is it the lens or the technique? Both.
The best way to make sharper images with the gear you already having is to extract everything it has. See Making Sharp Images.
I’ve updated my lenses page for Sony NEX to include a discussion of which lenses I recommend for high-grade results on Sony NEX.
See Guide to Leica for more on the Leica M Typ 240 and Leica M9 and lenses.
Try putting that Micro M in your pocket. Naming disparate red-dot cameras by volume in a veiling haze of nomenclature does not enhance the luxury appeal or help buyers understand the differences: it makes it harder. Super-size me with a Leica Jumbo M (since “M” now stands for meaningless).
“First to know more”: you and another million people, after the press.
Let’s look at the existing pricing lineup:
Observations:
So what makes sense here? A camera with a red dot that fills the price gap hole with what people want and need that will move people into the M line and help sell every lens Leica M can make (for which prices are raised every year for 4 years running now):
Less likely:
I appreciate very much the work you are doing on testing the NEX system, given the increasing lens opportunities and the quality of Sony sensors its future is promising.
Let me just suggest you to include some test on subjects that lay on the same focal plane (could that be also at near infinity, as you did with tile rooftops?). The bike, dolls and cabin have great details to look at, but as your last test on Touit vs Sony showed, provide a very uneven focal plane that makes corners very difficult to judge.
To give you an example, I would like to find out how much quality (if any) increase I would get from a 32mm Touit or Sony compared to my actual setup (SpeedBooster + canon 50 1.8). My guess is little both at 1.8 and 5.6 (if I do not consider very extreme portions of corners) but from your tests is very difficult to tell, mainly due to uneven focal planes of your subjects.
One last question, which software do you use, and which settings, in order to get the sharpening seen on your last tests?
DIGLLOYD: As for sharpening, my approaches involve both Adobe Camera Raw and Topaz InFocus, documented in the Workflow section of DAP.
I hope to make some careful studies at a distance soon.
Of the twenty or so 50mm (equiv) lenses I have tested, all but one has field curvature at distance— even what one would hope to be flat field lenses like the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar (corners)*. The solution: shoot at ƒ/5.6 or ƒ/8 for geometrically planar scenes (such as an infinity scene).
The Leica 50mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M is the best corrected 50mm lens I have yet seen (on all counts), though it might have a trace of field curvature judging by the MTF chart at ƒ/2 and ƒ/2.8. Its sibling Summilux has considerable field curvature.
A flat field lens (no field curvature) is rather the exception, especially at 50mm and wider focal lengths. It is not easy to correct field curvature for apertures faster than ƒ/2, and even at ƒ/2 it requires considerable optical effort. All optical designs trade off some benefit for others.
That said, the correction for field curvature is given far too low a priority in optical design, and is second only to focus shift as a imaging “gotcha”. I prefer lenses that are dead-on predictable in every scenario; field curvature undermines that in spades. Hence I would prefer a highly corrected flat-field ƒ/2.8 lens over an ƒ/1.8 or ƒ/2 lens. This is what Sigma has done with the 30mm (45mm equiv) lens on the Sigma DP2 Merrill, and it is a wonderful thing.
* Field curvature is a curved zone of focus, e.g., the nominal plane of focus is actually curved or wavy. It should not be confused with optical distortion, a warping of the proportions of the subject (straight lines do not remain straight). Nor should optical distortion be confused with perspective, which is purely a camera to subject distance issue not involving optics at all, and obeying the inverse square law. See also the size invariance principle.
Below, an example of a geometrically planar subject with two planes: the foreground railing and the distant background. Few 50mm (equiv) lenses can image this scene with full sharpness across the field on high-res digital until ƒ/5.6 or even ƒ/8. A tiny change in focus can “optimize” the placement of focus for such scenes against the specific field curvature, which also means that comparing lenses fairly on such scene is fraught with risk of erroneous conclusions by very small changes in focus—very hard to do fairly, there are no “quick tests” in spite of the apparent ease of the scene.
For more on this and other topics, see Making Sharp Images.
The Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar is not a macro lens, but at close range it delivers pleasing results with high sharpnss.
Presented in my review of the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar is an aperture series from ƒ/2 - ƒ/11, with large crops also. This study is mainly about bokeh.
Also added are some other sunflower examples.
Image below in the ProPhotoRGB color space, requires colorspace-aware web browser for correct display.
The Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar is not a macro lens, but it offers a pleasing combination of color, contrast and bokeh that make for satisfying close range shooting possibilities.
Presented in my review of the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar is an aperture series from ƒ/2.8 - ƒ/11, with large crops also.
Image below in the ProPhotoRGB color space, requires colorspace-aware web browser for correct display.
I take a first look at how the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar compares to the Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS on the Sony NEX-7, including my impressions of focusing both lenses, where there is a compelling difference.
I previously detailed how the NEX-7 can undermine one’s work.
In NYC, the Sony NEX-7 repeatedly found itself on Auto ISO. Again and again.
Today over the course of a 30-minute sunflower shoot on a tripod, the NEX-7 managed to change itself to Auto ISO three times, degrading several series of images by using ISO 500 to 1000. Well, actually they were quite good for those high ISO values. But I didn’t want ISO 1000, I wanted ISO 100.
Along with all its other design problems (buttons and dials, insane menu system, exposure bugs, etc), this camera confirms my judgment of 16 months ago which I had subsequently second-guessed. Now I am certain that my initial impression was spot-on: it’s a design for a toy mated to a sensor and lens, designed by engineers who have no inkling of the core set of features actually necessary for a reliable tool. That’s fine for a $200 point and shoot, but it is not fine for a ~$1000 offering. Design by checklist is not a design; it is anti-design.
The sensor is superb and one can make very high quality images with it, but being surprised by the controls gets old. As in “if I throw it 50 feet up, will it provide a satisfying burst of little plastic parts when it hits?”. When I compare the errors I see on the NEX-7 to those on the Sigma DP Merrill cameras, it’s night and day: the DP Merrills have their own limitations, but they always do exactly what I expect them to do.
All of which leads me to the general problem with today’s camera designs: kitchen-sink checklist design, ill-considered menu insanity, no ability to really customize the experience (e.g., hide all video JPEG settings), lousy controls and haptics, visual impediments (e.g., no EVF), confounding lens compromises (focus shift and field curvature), focusing systems that often miss, etc. Sadly, it’s a question of fewest issues, not of excellence.
This sunflower image proved extremely challenging to deal with: sunflowers deliver a nearly black recording in the blue channel and are very “hot” in the red channel.
Furthermore, most camera histograms show the bright yellow petals as blown-out when in fact another entire stop of exposure is appropriate (an unfortunate and fairly common reality proven by examining the NEX-7 raw file with RawDigger).
The camera did reasonably well here, but the black centers in these particular sunflowers are quite dark, adding to the contrast difficulties (even to the naked eye!). The way the camera sees these sunflowers is apparently rather different from the non-linear way human eyes see them, particularly the bright yellow. The NEX-7 sensor has done a very good job here, a testament to its quality, with the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar delivering a very pleasing rendition at ƒ/2.8.
A larger version of this image is found on the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 examples page.
Presented in the ProPhotoRGB color space, cannot be properly displayed in the sRGB or AdobeRGB color spaces. Use a calibrated wide-gamut display to view properly.
In Guide to Mirrorless, I document a damaging contrast bug with the Sony NEX-7 that came and went while shooting a comparison. The bug is independent of lens and aperture and occurs with the latest firmware. Included are RawDigger histograms to show that the bug is independent of raw converter.
This bug explains several series of severely low contrast images I made in NYC recently. These really surprised me, but I rationalized away the problem as due to shooting through window glass, even though other shots were fine. Now I believe that the window glass explanation was not involved and this was purely a camera bug.
Nasty stuff and one more reason I will wait for a new model (NEX-7N or whatever it will be called). See also my longer term perspective on the Sony NEX-7.
I summarize my current perspective on the 24-megapixel Sony NEX-7.
The current price of the NEX-7 is favorable, and it has a great sensor, but its physical design (buttons and dials) and other behavior give me pause. I hope for an improved version later this year.
I'm reading your posts about the Touit lenses with a lot of interest. Thanks for doing such an awesome job posting photos. You've for sure got the best NEX 7 plus Touit photos on the web at this time. I've got my 32/1.8 on order.
I'm noticing that you keep complaining about the autofocus accuracy of the NEX 7 and I'm wondering why you are using AF with totally stationary subjects when you've got one of the best manual focus machines ever made in your hand.
The EVF with magnified view and focus peaking is much more accurate than AF with any Nikon or Pentax DSLR I've ever had and one of the things I love about the NEX is being able to nail focus 90% + using the magnified view and focus peaking. Since you use Zeiss lenses on Canon and Nikon DSLRs, you're obviously used to MF, so try using it more with the NEX and I think you'll be very pleased.
PS - when taking photos of people, AF with Face Detection mode on my NEX 7 (I'm using my Sony 35/1.8 and 50/1.8) is fantastic.
DIGLLOYD: Over the years, I’ve written so extensively about how much I like an EVF and how critical focus accuracy is.
I was in NYC for less than 48 hour from stepping off the plane and getting back onto it, and that includes sleep and the Zeiss Touit press event. I had very little time for ad-hoc shooting, no contemplative time to be sure. I needed to work fast and produce some decent images in a short time. Complicating matters, my kids gave me a nice 'bug' yielding a nasty sore throat the first night and I was not operating at 100%.
And so the reasons are simple:
The NEX-7 sensor quality is fabulous, but at this point, I consider autofocus on the NEX-7 useless for any critical work (frequent backfocus), at least with high performance lenses where even small errors are manifest even at ƒ/5.6. I look forward to seeing a future 24MP or perhaps 32MP NEX with improved autofocus.
In short, I would take Jeff K’s question and extend it this way: for professional work (reliable and consistent results), the Sony NEX-7 is best used as a manual focus camera with magnified view in the EVF.
As far as face detection: I don’t want the face in focus, I want the eyes in focus. The eye of my choosing, as often it is one or the other, even at ƒ/5.6. I put that focusing spot right on one eye (many times), and the NEX-7 screwed that up (many times). So I see little reason to believe (without testing) that it can perform better with face detection: will I get sharp lips, nose, eyes, what?
Below, I wanted the leading eye in focus. The NEX-7 backfocused by an inch or so. It’s just adequately sharp, but not sharp where I wanted it: the leading eye is slightly blurred, and this is at ƒ/5.6! What would face detection have done here? Maybe it has some magic, worth a try I suppose, but when I put a specific AF point on an eye, I should get razor sharp focus, as with the Sigma DP Merrill spot focus sensor. The NEX-7 just cannot do that. And EVF zoom is problematic with non-static subjects and having to reframe after focusing.
In Guide to Mirrorless are additional examples in New York City with the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar on the Sony NEX-7, this set taken in the evening while walking the High Line in the former meatpacking district.
Retina grade images as usual.
In Guide to Mirrorless are additional examples in New York City with the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon on the Sony NEX-7, this set taken in the evening.
Tioga Pass is my route through Yosemite to the high country of Yosemite as well as the White Mountains and Death Valley.
I expect to visit Yosemite in the next 2-3 weeks. Please contact me if you are interested in one-on-one photo tour.
Traveling to the Eastern Sierra? Check out reader Dennis Mattinson’s Eastern Sierra Weather Center.
In Guide to Mirrorless are added MTF charts for the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar and also distortion graphs for the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar on Sony NEX and Fuji X. Also vignetting on Sony NEX and Fuji X.
The MTF pages include a comparison on the relative MTF performance versus the Zeiss ZF.2 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar and Leica 50mm Summicron-M.
In Guide to Mirrorless are added MTF charts for the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon and also distortion graphs for the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon on Sony NEX and Fuji X.
Both pages include commentary, and the MTF pages include notes on the relative performance to the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 Distagon and Leica 18mm f/3.8 Super-Elmar-M ASPH.
In Guide to Mirrorless are additional examples in New York City with the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon on the Sony NEX-7, this set taken on a morning walk from the meat-packing district to Union Square.
In Guide to Mirrorless, I’ve published a wide variety of examples in New York City with the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon on the Sony NEX-7.
Many Retina-grade examples are shown, most with both color and black and white renditions (the Touit 12/2.8 makes an exceptional lens for black and white conversions).
The Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar has tremendous penetrating power. With its high contrast wide open and superb control of color errors, it makes an exceptional lens for night-time photography.
A larger version of this image has been added to my Outdoors Examples page.
Can a 12mm lens (18mm equivalent on full frame) be used successfully for portraiture? I made the attempt and achieved some results that I like.
In the review of the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon are portraits in New York City.
Nine Retina-grade examples are shown, each with both color and black and white renditions. The Touit 12/2.8 makes an exceptional lens for black and white conversions.
To my eye, the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 might be the best-performing 18mm (equiv) lens that I have yet seen, offering an impressive combination of sharpness, contrast, bokeh, and color correction.
And so I will say this: if you’re a Sony NEX shooter, this is a must have lens for wide angle work. Presumably the same applies to Fuji X, but I have not yet tested on the Fuji X-Pro1 or X-E1.
In the review of the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar are portraits in New York City.
Seven Retina-grade examples are shown, most with both color and black and white renditions.
I came away very impressed with the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar. This is a wonderfully balanced lens (in the sense of its drawing style, sharpness, bokeh, etc).
In the review of the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar is an detailed evaluation of bokeh with the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar on the Sony NEX-7.
Five examples are shown, each with retina-grade images and crops, along with commentary. Much more is coming on both the Touit 32mm f/1.8 and 12mm f/2.8.
These examples leave little doubt as to the professional grade image rendition now available to those looking to shoot a smaller camera system. In my estimation, the two new Zeiss Touit lenses make the Sony NEX and Fuji X platforms much more attractive. Now having an extensive set of field images, I am comfortable saying that these two lenses would be my first choices on either Sony NEX and Fuji X; if anything they outperform comparable Zeiss lenses on full-frame DSLRs (Zeiss ZF.2/ZE 50/1.4 Planar and 18/3.5 Distagon). Which is what one would hope for in a modern design for a smaller sensor size.
The Touit lenses are high grade and ready for a pro-grade NEX or Fuji X platform. But as it stands, the camera body “gotchas” with NEX-7 are troublesome, as I found out in NYC, and this means more than irritation, it meant unexpected failures. Yet all it would take is some mild effort in firmware to fix at least some of them ( the NEX-6 fixes a few issues, but I wanted 24 megapixles, not 16). It is my uneasy feeling that both Sony nor Fuji have only a dim inkling of the needs of real photographers (ergonomics, elimination of arbitrary behavioral quirks, kitchen sink designs, hideously arranged menus systems). Let us hope that both vendors start taking serious input from photographers looking for reliable tools free of toylike design warts.
Heading to NYC for a few days for a Zeiss press event on The Birds.
The High Line walkway is visible at left.
I’d much rather drive if I could, but NYC is a long way from California.
I haven’t flown for about five years, and except for the return flight, I’ll be happy if I don’t have to fly again for another five. Airport parking was fine, and the TSA experience was actually just fine too (a bit of a wait but OK). So I got off easy there.
Then I boarded into a stuffy overly warm and humid airplane cabin yielding an almost visceral “unclean” feeling; under ordinary circumstance I would immediately have left such a place. But, this was my flight and we have to accept such things. As the plane lingered on the tarmac with a half hour delay, we were treated to the usual toxic stew of jet engine exhaust or whatever it is (am I the only one who finds it highly unpleasant?), followed finally by an improved brew: a bathroom-freshener odor from the air vents. With what feels like an incipient infection (my whole family has been sick with the latest public school germs), I was definitely not a fan of the experience . The dry air during the flight does not help matters. Well, I just like clean fresh air and I realize that such things probably don’t bother most people.
The seats are tight, but with an aisle seat and my own hand-carried sushi and favorite chocolate bar, I had a little picnic that proved most satisfying. But no power for my laptop and no WiFi in the old Boeing 757 with vintage CRT displays for movies, some magenta and some green in color cast, all showing the same insipid movie.
Suppose the 24-megapixel Sony NEX-7 were scaled up to full frame: it would become a 56-megapixel sensor at the same pixel density. So what would image quality look like? Pretty fantastic.
In Making Sharp Images, I show just what we might expect from a Sony NEX-7 sensor scaled to 56-megapixels, keeping in mind that the Sony NEX-7 technology has almost certainly been further improved (it seems so with the Sony RX100, which has a full-frame equivalent pixel density of 148 megapixels).
Oversampling (using ultra high-res sensor) can deliver very high image quality with smaller output files, but at a native resolution of 56 megapixels, the quality is already excellent even natively. You can’t lose with what’s bound to show up sooner or later!
In the review of the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar is an selection of examples with the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar on the Sony NEX-7. I’ll have quite a few more, including some from an upcoming trip to New York City.
All but one are standard fare, but I had a little fun with this one poppy image; I like the 3D effect it creates.
Previously posted, but now updated to include a 3-way comparison:
In the review of the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar is an analysis of the distortion correction for JPEG images vs uncorrected RAW (Sony NEX-7).
As yet, there is no Adobe Camera Raw lens profile for the Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar, but this updated analysis shows the ACR setting for correcting distortion in ACR are shown, along with the 3-way comparison for each.
Certain other useful observations are also made here.
Added to my review of the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon are additional examples with the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon.
Many of the examples have both color and black and white renditions, the Touit 12/2.8 Distagon making a very fine lens for black and white work due to its high contrast and superb color correction.
I know you haven't finished the full review on this lens but even the samples you took tells me how thoroughly you profess in what you do.
Parameters like contrast, colour correction, rendering, back focus, sharpness, CA, diffraction, sharpness gradient, separation, flare control, colour uniformity, ergonomics you name it, I find all I need to know in just a few minutes by reading your review and I get that before even some other bloggers mention that the lens exists. I've been looking for a compact UWA lens+ camera solution for quite sometime. So I looked around I wasted hours and haven't found anywhere the kind of information I read in diglloyd.com. I shouldn't be asking as a reader to the blogger oh what about this what about that and I shouldn't need to be buying to find out myself. That's the very purpose of their existence.
DIGLLOYD: the question I continually pose to myself is the same one I posed about 8 year ago: what do *I* want to know that I cannot seem to find? That frustration in finding what I wanted to know (without having to buy it first) was the genesis of this site. I hold myself to that idea with each camera or lens I review. Which sometimes means a lot more coverage than anticipated, and sometimes cutting something short.
Posted in my review of the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar is an analysis of the distortion correction for JPEG images vs uncorrected RAW (Sony NEX-7).
As yet, there is no Adobe Camera Raw lens profile for the Touit 32mm f/1.8, though one should arrive with the next release of ACR (June).
An interesting side-effect of the distortion correction is also discovered.
Posted in my review of the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon is an analysis of the distortion correction for JPEG images vs uncorrected RAW (Sony NEX-7).
As yet, there is no Adobe Camera Raw lens profile for the Touit 12mm f/2.8, though one should arrive with the next release of ACR (June).
This evaluation is also interesting as for the JPEG versus RAW quality (two large crops shown).
The new Olympus PEN E-P5 looks to be a very nice little camera, with most of the good features of its sibling the E-M5 (see my in depth review of the Olympus E-M5).
For me an EVF is essential. And I daresay this is true for anyone in their mid-40's onward, due to presbyopia.
As shown below, the VF-4 EVF on the E-P5 greatly increases the bulk of the camera, so the built-in 1440K-pixel EVF of the E-M5 makes more sense for me. However, the new 2360K-pixel Olympus VF-4 is a higher resolution device and so for some this might be preferable. One presumes that a future E-M6 would incorporate the higher-resolution EVF.
When the price of the viewfinder (about $279) is added into the $999 cost of the Olympus PEN E-P5, the current Olympus OMD-D E-M5 with its built-in viewfinder at about $949 looks attractive on both a cost and convenience basis.
Still, I’ll have to reserve judgment until I have one in my hands to see the form factor differences and EVF quality side by side.
Iridient Developer has some very nice facilities for raw conversion including some specialty black and white conversion modes and deconvolution sharpening. It is a handy tool to have around, even if Lightroom is your mainstay. Recommended. And there is a demo version available.
Note the support for the Fuji X-Pro1, X-E1, X100S (XTrans sensor).
Developer Brian Griffith responds to my question about Fuji X file processing:
The X-trans images should be pretty good right from the defaults in my tests, especially at low ISO. My tests so far have shown much, much better results than Lightroom 4.4, especially on color smearing and overall detail reproduction. Tough studio test cases really highlight the differences.
Depending on sharpening preferences you can probably pull out even more fine, micro detail compared to the defaults with my Richardson-Lucy based sharpening and if your preferences are more for nice crisp traditional edge sharpening unsharp mask is a popular favorite and my implementation of USM is fantastic too (float precision, CIE LAB derived perceptual color space, etc)!
Pacific Grove, CA, May 9, 2013 -- Iridient Digital, Inc. has released Iridient Developer 2.1 a major update to my critically acclaimed image processing software for Mac OS X.
The Iridient Developer 2.1 update can now be downloaded here:
http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper_download.htmlThis update features a total overhaul of the noise reduction functionality including three all new, state of the art, noise reduction methods along with optional auto noise adjustment levels based on ISO and other image parameters. These new methods greatly improve high ISO noise processing while retaining excellent image detail and reducing color smearing across object borders!
Iridient Developer now provides support for use of Apple's RAW conversion libraries as an alternate RAW conversion method and as a way to provide support for some unique camera models (such as Fuji's X-trans cameras) that I have not yet found the time to support with my own custom demosaic routines.
A new monochrome (B&W) conversion option, "RAW Color Channel Mixer" has been introduced which provides direct color mixing of the sensor color planes direct from the demosaic process without any prior color conversion.
This update also features a major refresh of internal color processing routines and adds support for the LittleCMS v2.4 ICC color management engine in addition to Apple's ColorSync. LittleCMS features full ICC v4.3 compatibility and support for the latest ICC floating point profile extensions. The color management changes also now support optional black point compensation.
This release also includes a number of other improvements and bug fixes.
The complete Iridient Developer version history including full release notes for version 2.1 can be viewed at the web site here:
<http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper_history.html>Support has been added for 22 new RAW camera models including:
- Canon: Rebel SL1 (100D, Kiss X7) and Rebel T5i(700D, Kiss X7i)
- Nikon: D7100, Coolpix A and Coolpix P330
- Sony: SLT-A58
- Olympus: XZ-10
- Panasonic: DMC-G6 and DMC-GF6
- Fuji: X-Pro1, X-E1, X20, X100S, F900EXR, HS50EXR, HS35EXR and SL1000.
- Ricoh: GR
- Hasselblad: H5D-50, H5D-40, H4D-40 and H4D-31
This release is a paid upgrade for users who originally purchased a license prior to September 16, 2011. You now get at least 18 months of FREE upgrades, regardless of version designation, when purchasing Iridient Developer. When unregistered Iridient Developer is fully functional, however all exported images will be watermarked.
Upgrades are available to previously licensed users for the discounted price of $45 US by requesting a 40% discount code from sales@iridientdigital.com. New licenses can be purchased for $75.00 US securely through Iridient Developer by selecting "Purchase..." from the File menu or securely online through our web store at:
http://store.eSellerate.net/s.aspx?s=STR9488905116Iridient Developer 2.1 is a 64-bit Intel application and requires a 64-bit capable Intel processor (Core 2 Duo or later) and Mac OS X version 10.6 or later.
Feel free to contact me at:
Brian Griffith
Iridient Digital, Inc.
http://www.iridientdigital.com/
info@iridientdigital.com (general questions)
sales@iridientdigital.com (order issues, lost serial numbers)
support@iridientdigital.com (bugs, problems, technical questions)
See my review of Sony NEX in Guide to Mirrorless.
Using the NEX-7 yesterday, I noticed in autofocus mode a disconcerting behavior that makes the camera feel nervous and unstable: the NEX-7 cycles the lens repeatedly while the user is doing nothing: it defocuses and refocuses. This is apparently a “feature”.
The interval varies: it can be every second continually for a minute, or hardly ever, or every 10 seconds and so on.
By itself this constant noise and focusing activity is annoying, but it also chews up battery power and made me think the camera (or lenses) were defective. I’ve since learned that this is a “feature”.
But when composing an image it is downright insane (or might make me go insane): I’m engaged in the scene trying to compose, and every 2 seconds the view goes blurry and then refocuses (or every second or every 10 seconds, it’s seemingly random). It’s incredibly damaging to my ability to use the camera and focus on image-making.
How could anyone at Sony think this is anything but a serious bug? It demonstrates how the market cries out for good design in all the details. A camera is not just the latest fancy sensor or screen; it has to be a usable whole.
Add to this the constant changes to camera settings, the NEX-7 is driving me crazy: dials that all but change themselves at a breath of air—I’m suddenly back at auto-ISO or with -2 stops exposure compensation or making a movie (and my images are seemingly all missing because the camera changed folders to the video folder), or in P mode instead of M. Locking the controls is not an answer; I need to use them.
I thought I was being too harsh on the NEX-7 in calling it a “game console” in previous posts, but I reiterate and re-emphasize that statement: this is a toy, not a serious tool.
Readers suggest workarounds for the autofocus issues below, basically decoupling the autofocus from the shutter.
Default behavior with the NEX 7 is for it to continuously focus when in AF mode. Here's the best way I've found to control this behavior.
First, set AF mode to MF.
Next, in Setup menu under custom key settings set AF/MF button to AF/MF control.
Next, in Setup menu set AF/MF control to "Hold" (not "Toggle").
With the camera set up this way, you initiate AF by pushing (and holding) the AF/MF button and when you release pressure from the button the camera stops autofocusing. This is very handy for me since it's the way I always set up my Nikon and Pentax DSLRs. I find it very useable because since I have MF assist on, I can first AF by pushing the AF/MF button, then if my subject is not moving and I want to double check focus I can release pressure on the AF/MF button which puts me back in MF mode, turn the focus ring on my lens which automatically puts me in magnified view to double check focus. Then, a half press on the shutter button gets you out of magnified view to double check composition/framing before taking the shot.
DIGLLOYD: A workable solution for this particular issue.
Yep, it's a common complaint about the NEX-7 AF that I'd imagine will be fixed in a firmware update. The good news is that the NEX-7 has the rear AF/MF button. What I personally do is leave the camera in manual focus, and press the AF/MF button to autofocus. Make sure you set AF/MF control to "hold," and map the AF/MF button to "AF/MF control" in the setup menu.
Doing the above will stop the constant pre-focus and save you battery life. A lot of DSLR shooters shoot this way, because it decouples metering from AF, which is nice, IMO.
DIGLLOYD: Ditto.
I have a NEX-7 (and NEX-5N, and NEX-5) it doesn’t do this. I wouldn’t be able to use it if it did. I don’t have it in front of me right now, but perhaps you could just check if you could set the AF mode to AF-S instead of AF-C?
DIGLLOYD: including my camera, three readers have confirmed this behavior, a total of four. So I have no explanation to offer, unless perhaps HZ has disabled autofocus when the shutter is pressed, as is the tip given above.
A HUGE thank you to the other readers who respnded and to you for publishing their responses. I had made numerous attempts at decoupling the AF from the shutter button in the past, but had never found a working combination with the NEX-7. I have set up current and past DSLR's AF using the AEL or AFL buttons, and I much prefer this method. Anyways, this little trick has brought new life to my NEX. It is instantly more reliable!
That said, I wanted to point something out that I am just now noticing with the new settings applied. Beyond getting rid of the periodic AF hunt glitch, I have noticed that the camera will also keep the focus setting in tact when the cameras power is cycled. Considering the amount of careful tripod work you do, I'm sure this is welcome news!
DIGLLOYD: I’m glad to hear this! However, I do not see that the focus remains unaffected by power cycling the camera.
I found this quote in the Forbes interview with Leica quite interesting:
FORBES: An established market, plus established competitors, plus a new target audience for Leica… it all adds up to a tall order. How is is the S-System selling?
LEICA: There are no industry-wide figures, but we think the core medium format market is roughly 6000 units per year – worldwide, for all brands. We are not yet the market leader (I estimate Phase One to have 40-45% market share), but we already have 20% share – and this is only after 3 years after introduction.
A few years back I had heard “2000” for the total market size. Well, 2000 or 6000 is of the same quite small magnitude—dwarfed by any DSLR or high-end compact presumably by a factor of 10X - 100X.
Considering the R&D costs and this small market, it explains why these cameras cost so much. But I still think that with the right design choices and the right form factor (and lower price), this market could be much. The key is to keep R&D costs low, thinking in terms of building a large sensor compact camera as something enjoyable to be targeted at anyone who would be a pro DSLR and some expensive lenses, but who want a real camera with the ultimate quality..
This is perhaps a misleading way to look at the "MF market". Why? The life cycle of a professional MF system is very much longer than almost any DSLR and certainly all of the compact, 4/3 etc offerings. The correct way to look at this market is to look at the number of professional (and perhaps high-end amateurs) using these systems. Most Hasselblad 500 series cameras and I suspect virtually all of their H series cameras are still in use. They are, to put it bluntly built like tanks, and are eminently serviceable for a very long time. Mr Forbes or Leica may be correct in that the volume of new unit sales each year is low but these units are adding incrementally to a substantial installed user base.
A more useful measure would be to look at the market share of each company in respect of the total installed user base. This, I suspect would show that Hasselblad dwarfs the rest. Turning to the definition of the MF market. This is not a market for a piece of rapidly redundant technical equipment a la Nikon and Canon but for a set of tools, support and services which meet professional photographers needs worldwide.
Any comparison with consumer products is therefore facile and misleading.
DIGLOYD: facile: “appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.”. All righty then. I don’t know everything, that’s for sure.
Every market including the consumer and prosumer ones has “add on” sales and services: lenses, accessories, service and so on. The total size of the market is proportional to yearly sales and also to the installed base. But this is true for Nikon and Canon DSLRs also, and arguably more so, since the array of accessories and lenses is far wider, and over a massive user base by comparison. And such users tend to keep buying new cameras every few years.
Moreover, more and more the pros are finding that high-end DSLRs can take on most of the tasks formerly reserved for medium format. Not all tasks, but most. And more and more, the difficult economy means that the market is pushing pros who might have formerly bought a medium format system down to “way beyond good enough” DSLRs. And most pros have both as well.
Finally, I expect the advent of world-class lenses of true medium format pro-grade quality such as the Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Distagon to shake up the medium format market.
Posted in my review of the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon is a first batch of examples with the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon.
First look at the new Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar on the Sony NEX-7 (Blue Doll / Pellegrino) is now up, with a full aperture series using Retina-grade images and generous crops, all across the full aperture range.
This test is at moderate range, a reproduction ratio of 1:20, similar to a head and shoulders portrait range.
The Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon and Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar autofocus lenses for Sony NEX and Fuji X are now available for pre-order at B&H Photo.
The birds are here, coverage to follow later today.
The Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon and Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar autofocus lenses for Sony NEX and Fuji X are now available for pre-order at B&H Photo.
I’ve run into one odd thing driving me bananas with both Touit lenses on the Sony NEX-7: with autofocus enabled, the lenses hunt periodically (without me doing anything).
I’ve learned that this might actually be a (very annoying) *feature* of the Sony NEX.
Any readers who have NEX and AF lenses please let me know if such behavior is actually a NEX feature (bug).
I am afraid to report that the AF behavior you're noticing is normal. I can't, for the life of me, understand why Sony chose to do this.
DIGLLOYD: Wow. That’s a big strike against NEX in my view— makes the camera feel unstable and unpredictable.
Periodically, the local oaks are heavily infested with these leaf-munching caterpillars, which can almost completely denude a tree.
Some of the hapless critters fall off the tree and crawl around aimlessly, presumably to starve. Or perhaps they are done eating and ready to find a nice spot to cocoon. The oak tree above looked quite weak at a time when it should be showing vigorous new (tasty) leaves.
I’m told I should have test samples of the two new Zeiss Touit lenses this Friday, which means I should be able to post some weekend coverage just before I head to New York City for a few days.
I’ll be testing them on the Sony NEX-7; it’s 24 megapixel APS-C sensor is very demanding of a lens (equivalent to a 56 megapixel full frame sensor in pixel density).
The Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon and Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar autofocus lenses for Sony NEX and Fuji X are now available for pre-order at B&H Photo.
Photographers and videographers and creative professionals might want to think through their level of committment to Adobe products.
Adobe’s new Cloud-only approach raises a host of issues carefully avoided by Adobe, and I share my thoughts in several essays over at MacPerformanceGuide.com:
As far as I can tell, the forced transition to Adobe Cloud and the removal of any prior upgrade options is not very popular.
Regarding my D800E vs Canon 5D Mark III image sharpness comparison, a reader comments:
Very interesting to see how unreliable pure pixel count may be to conclude about perceived image quality. The explanation hypothesis is of course quite speculative. We don't know exactly the filter design in both cameras, we also don't know what both parties mean with RAW; it might also be pre-cooked a bit.
I think I remember that Canon had announced with the MkIII something like deconvolution image restoration, but I also don't know exactly.
Would be nice to have time to dig deeper in these things - yet the needs of practical picture taking with lenses are a bit distant from that.
DIGLLOYD: Agreed, it is hard to say what is the cause, and at some point one might just choose a camera brand one enjoys shooting, since the race for quality and megapixels remains highly competitive and thus that brand will eventually deliver the high-end ultra camera. Of course, one might reasonably ask whether Sony might get there before Nikon or Canon, say with a full-frame FNEX.
My hypothesis of the “glass sandwich” being involved is of course speculation, but with some basis for making the hypothesis: the Nikon D7100 with its much higher pixel density (56 vs 36 megapixels, equivalent density) does not seem to exhibit the D800E behavior.
The D7100 has no optical low pass filter, though Nikon does not go into details on exactly what glass is used on the sensor. See Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar: Future Potential on ~56 Megapixel DSLR and How Does the Zeiss 135mm ƒ/2 APO-Sonnar Perform on a 56-Megapixel DSLR?.
It seems likely that Nikon does something to “cook” the raw file, because the the dark tones are so clean in the near-black tones (as compared with Canon). Ditto for Sony NEX-7 and various Nikon DX cameras. But perhaps also with newer Canon EF-S cropped frame cameras.
Canon DSLRs in general have long been favored by astrophotographers because faint stars which might look like noise can be extracted by stacking 100 frames or more, something not possible with a camera raw that smooths away near-black pixels.
As for “cooking” the raw file with deconvolution, from what I see with many small sensor cameras I would be quite surprised if this is not already being done, and it’s possible that the Canon 5D Mark III employs such an approach also. Such an approach would explain what seems (to me) to be artificially high acutance on the Canon 5D Mark III images. But this too is speculation.
As an aside, my information is that Low Pass Filter 2 is actually bonded to the sensor, so that an infrared or full spectrum conversion effectively leaves a partial optical low pass filter in place, one that blurs in only the vertical direction.
As for the D800E “blur + unblur” filter pack, a filter that blurs followed by one that unblurs would seemingly have to be in absolutely perfect alignment for the claim to bear out—and any misalignment on the micron level would presumably make the camera perform somewhere between the D800 and the D800E, a sort of weakened optical low pass filter
I have read somewhere, Clarkvision maybe, can't find the source right now, that Canon adds a "DC bias" equivalent to digital 1024, before the ADC.
The thermal noise in the pixel readout amplifiers, and the AFE of the ADC will act in the same way as in dithered audio ADCs: increasing the effective resolution of the ADC.
The added white noise will "lift" the faint image details out of the noise, normally below one LSB, to above one LSB, as long as the noise is a little more than one LSB on the ADC.
Autocorrelation will recover these faint detail, while random white noise is filtered aug in the autocorrelation. This is why astro photographers favours Canon.
Nikon does not do the same, meaning that the noise is "clipped" at zero, so that negative part of the expectance value of the noise does not get into the raw file.
Clipping the RAW pixel value at zero effectively gives half a stop of noise cancellation since half of the noise is "filtered" in the clipping process away.
DIGLLOYD: all cameras have a black level setting, and RawDigger makes this explicit, but I’m unsure if this is the same idea.
As far as detail, the dark areas and ADC to digital conversion do not explain the results in very bright areas.
Published in Guide to Digital Infrared is a comparison with large crops showing the difference between 715nm and 830nm infrared cut filters, including the spectral transmission graphs for each.
The Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO Macro was used so as to avoid any spectral limitations from the lens.
Also included are RawDigger histograms showing the actual raw data obtained for the 715nm and 830nm images.
The Nikon D800-IR used here was by MaxMax.com and is for sale from them. See the details on the first look page.
Published in Guide to Digital Infrared is a page of retina-grade examples with the Nikon D800-IR+ Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon in both false color and monochrome.
The Nikon D800-IR used here was by MaxMax.com and is for sale from them. See the details on the first look page.
Some people find images in IR of people disturbing (morbid or ghostly?). I am not holding this one out as something I like, but purely as an example of the look that IR can produce as it sees into skin more than visible light.
Published in Guide to Digital Infrared is a page of retina-grade examples with the Nikon D800-IR in both false color and monochrome.
Tthe Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 IR-Distagon and Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro lenses were used, the Coastal 60/4 being particular impressive on the D800-IR.
The Nikon D800-IR used here was by MaxMax.com and is for sale from them. See the details on the first look page.
Courtesy of MaxMax.com, in my hands is Nikon D800-IR:
This D800 infrared camera is FOR SALE (by MaxMax.com). It is brand-new, and I’ve been asked to keep the frame counter under 100 frames. If interested, contact me and I’ll forward your request along (I’m not buying because I already have a D800 I might convert soon).
See the diglloyd Guide to Digital Infrared for the various issues that arise with infrared in general, including lens performance, spectral transmission and IR hot spots and flare.
Tthe special Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 IR-Distagon has lens coatings that avoid the hot spot and falloff common with most wide angle lenses, though it is not the sharpest line in infrared (few are).
With a 715nm, false-color images are possible as shown below. One can utilize the RGB color channel differential for a preferred tonality. Of course, it is also possible to attach a more restrictive cutoff filter to the lens such as a B+W 093 infrared filter or similar for deeper infrared. See The Visible Spectrum vs Infrared in Guide to Digital Infrared.
Toggle to see false-color infrared 715nm versus a grayscale rendition.
As described in diglloyd Guide to Digital Infrared, the color channels can be swapped if you prefer a blue sky:
Courtesy of MaxMax.com, I have a Nikon D800-IR on the way:
See the diglloyd Guide to Digital Infrared for the various issues that arise with infrared in general, including lens performance, spectral transmission and IR hot spots and flare.
One lens that is superb in infrared is the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO-Macro, and I also have the special Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 IR-Distagon.
The internal IR-cut filter over the sensor has the characteristics shown below.
The human eye can actually see dimly out to ~900nm (possibly even farther, albeit very dimly), a fact which can be determined by looking directly into an infrared LED in a dark room.
Infrared photography properly begins around 715nm, with the range of 715-760nm affording “false color”: the R/G/B photosites respond differently to infrared light (differential transmission). Starting around 760nm, all of the R/G/B photosites go transparent to infrared, thus the image becomes pure monochrome (the photosites all see the same luminance).
I view your site every day and learn a lot from your experience and insight.
When I got my first camera converted to IR, a Canon D20, I got a good start in IR photography using your Guide to Digital Infrared Photography. Since then I have had a Canon 5D, a Canon 5D MKII, and now a Sigma DP2M. I've always used the 830nm IR filter.
The MKII was excellent, especially using Live View for manual focus and L f4 lenses which seemed to be hot spot free at all apertures. Here are some IR/Monochrome Studies taken in NYC last summer: <omitted>
Recently, I asked MaxMax to do the same conversion on a Sigma DP2M. This was their first attempt on this camera. Turned out a 830nm filter was not available in the right thickness so they replaced the IR/UV filter with a clear optical window of the correct thickness so that the auto focus would work correctly. The idea was to use on-the-lens filters for both IR and color images. A 830nm IR filter produced hotspots at all apertures. However, a 720nm IR filter works beautifully, producing no hot spots and good B&W conversions. See: <omitted>
Finding a 49mm standard IR/UV filter for color work has proven more difficult. At this point I'm using a CC1 filter from MaxMax that is 52mm with a step down ring to 49mm.This does not allow the lens hood to be used. Moreover, the IR/UV correction is a bit different than the original filter which requires a custom white balance and white balance tweaking in post processing. Still I've got an IR camera and a color camera in the same package.
I must say that Dan Llewellyn at MaxMax is willing to work with his customers and produces excellent camera conversions.
Thanks again for your site!
DIGLLOYD: the infrared images from the Sigma DP2 Merrill almost make me want to convert mine!
In Guide to Zeiss, separate ƒ/2 - ƒ/16 aperture series for both the Nikon D800E and Canon 5D Mark III have been added, using the blue doll / Pellegrino scene.
The series give the full picture of lens performance from maximum to minimum aperture.
The usual Retina grade images and crops are presented.
Get the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar at B&H Photo.
The pixel density on the Sony NEX-7 and the Nikon D7100 is equivalent to 56 megapixels if scaled to a full frame sensor.
As with the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar, one wonders what the future potential image quality is once something in the 56 megapixels range arrives in a full-frame DSLR.
Retina-grade images from ƒ/2 - ƒ/22 are presented, along with the usual generously sized actual pixels crops along with included MTF discussion relative to the results.
In Guide to Zeiss, see Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar on Sony NEX-7 and Nikon D7100.
The absolute requirement of precision focus is a recurring conclusion in your evaluations of the high-MP sensors, yet neither Nikon or Canon appear the slightest bit inclined to include focus peaking like Leica and Sony whilst in the latest FF Canikon bodies, neither offer optional screens optimized for manual focus nor designs accommodating 3rd party offerings. The Zeiss website even urges use of elusive MF-optimized screens. LV isn't always practicable nor ideal in may of the new bodies. Is there any relief in the offing that you may know of?
DIGLLOYD: The absence of an EVF option for Nikon and Canon DSLRs is simply design insanity in the present context of high resolution digital; optical DSLR viewfinders are good for composing, but hit or miss anachronisms for manual focusing due to the extremely poor suitability of the no-choice autofocus oriented focusing screens in the D800 and Canon 5D Mark III.
See:
The following applies to all native-mount lenses on Sony NEX and Fuji X, and is not particular to the Zeiss Touit lenses:
For Sony NEX, camera JPEGs can correct vignetting, distortion and color fringing independently (user choice).
Sony NEX ARW raw files are unaltered by these choices (no correction in raw format). This is the Right Way to do it, kudos to Sony.
For Fuji X-Pro1, X-E1, camera JPEG is always corrected with dedicated lenses, there is no choice available.
In RAW some correction is applied also: distortion is corrected, fringing is corrected , but the results are different than with JPEG.
This is the not to my liking (should at least be user-selectable). Together with oddball image artifacts and uncorrected user interface problems, Fuji X remains an unappealing system to me.
I just confirmed the behavior you describe with Fuji's own lenses - the XE-1 is definitely applying distortion correction to the raw data when the lens is identified. Taking a shot in full manual with the 18mm f/2 and then taking the same shot with the lens contacts covered by a thin piece of acetate results in one "raw" file with significant barrel distortion and one "raw" file without.
I did not see the same behavior with the 14mm f/2.8. The distortion is either not worth correcting, or is not present for subjects between 2 and 15 feet, which was the limit of my test scene. With this lens the two raw files and the two jpegs all matched precisely, almost to the pixel on a vertical doorframe and bookcase at the extremes of the frame. The shot with the contacts covered reads F/1 and reports the preset focal length (which happened to be 85mm), and won't take without "shoot without lens" enabled, so the camera is definitely fooled.
Very bad behavior on Fuji's part on one hand, but impressive performance from the 14mm on the other.
DIGLLOYD: it is certainly possible to design a low-distortion 14mm for APS-C (~21mm equivalent on full frame).
The Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon and Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar autofocus lenses for Sony NEX and Fuji X are now available for pre-order at B&H Photo. Expected availability June 2nd.
Take a look at the design of these lenses: they are sleek and promise a very nice feel to the hand. I expect to have samples very soon for testing on the 24-megapixel Sony NEX-7, whose sensor is very demanding (its 24MP scaled to full frame would be 56MP).
The Nikon D7100 has favorably impressed me, so I wondered: does the Sony NEX-7 sensor hold up to the D7100 sensor? With the D7100 sensor having no anti-aliasing filter and the NEX-7 now nearly 18 months old, might the D7100 show a clear move forward?
In Guide to Mirrorless I present a comparison of the Sony NEX-7 versus the Nikon D7100 using the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar, bracketing in 1mm increments to ensure a rigorous focus match.
The usual retina-grade images and crops are presented, at ƒ/2 and ƒ/8.
The very interesting perspective I see here is that more and more, it is form factor, lens choice, ergonomics and features which might become the deciding factor in the years ahead. Neither camera “nails it” for me, but both have their merits in different ways.
My definitive D800E vs Canon 5D Mark III image sharpness comparison, in DAP.
The usual Retina-grade images and crops are presented.
A 27% linear resolution difference is modest (D800E vs 5DM3). It is 22 vs 36 megapixels, or 12 vs 19, etc.
A 27% linear resolving power difference is readily evident if the lens and and sensor cooperate optimally, but it doesn’t “jump out” necessarily. And with a sub-par lens, or less than absolutely perfect technique, the differences quickly evaporate.
The genesis of this effort was the DxO report I discussed, which claimed two things: (1) that at the same resolution the Canon 5D Mark III showed 15% more resolution than the 5D Mark II*, and (2) that the Nikon D800 was not necessarily delivering its rated resolution by comparison (“In terms of pixel count and stills output, 36 Mpix to 22.3 Mpix sounds a lot but in real life conditions, it’s not as much as the figures suggest”).
So I wanted to investigate this claim with respect to the D800E and 5D Mark III using the best lens and most meticulous effort possible.
Accordingly, I chose the D800E and Canon 5D Mark III along with the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar for both.
* Which strongly suggests that the sensor or glass over the sensor has to be responsible, hence the Nikon designs would possibly show similar limitations, and the new Nikon D7100 in fact seems to perform better than one would expect compared to its D800E sibling.
I work in the real world for photographs, which means I produce a result which I deem suitable for presentation and/or print. Not some unsharpened variant that looks like a blur filter was run on it—which in fact is blurry as a result of discrete sampling and demosaicing, lacking acutance that must be restored as a natural part of working properly with digital. And that staircasing on the Canon image is present with zero sharpening, it’s just harder to see with no acutance.
I don’t claim to have all the answers to every combination of lens and camera, but I did this test with exceptional precision, taking two full days to do this one comparison properly (2nd day was a repeat confirmation). A 4-way test becomes far more demanding and time consuming, and raises the odds for errors of all kinds.
The Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar has an exceptionally digital-friendly chief ray angle, and I would call it out as the best lens available on a DSLR today (see How Does the Zeiss 135mm ƒ/2 APO-Sonnar Perform on a 56-Megapixel DSLR?). The 20mm comment is out in left field in this context, being retrofocus in nature as any 20mm DSLR lens has to be in order to clear the mirrorbox.
Older wide angle designs also had fairly steep ray angles (being designed for film) compared to modern digital designs like the Zeiss ZF.2 15/2.8 Distagon, which remarkably has a ray angle even more friendly to digital than the 100/2 Makro-Planar.
As far as I know, there is no better lens for this test than the 135/2 APO-Sonnar in favoring the D800E (and 5DM3) for peak quality, which was my hypothesis to prove or disprove: to establish a clear image sharpness advantage with everything being its best.
The results are what they are, the only issue is what is the cause, my theory being discussed in the coverage. I’ve made certain inquiries of experts, and perhaps they can shed some light on the results.
I have a theory I wanted to run by you.
I have noticed over the years, companies such as canon have been "baking" Raw data. I thought this was limited to noise reduction but would it be possible for them to also sharpen or apply extra contrast before storing the Raw data?
On another note, looking at DXOmark lens data, the D800 (non E) performs at the same "MP" rating as the D600 and D3x. They only tested three lenses on the D800E but it does seem to have higher performance than the other full frames but not publishing more results for the D800e also makes me think they ran into the same issue as you and as a favor to Nikon (and their reputation) they are hesitant to publish more results.
A can of worms just been opened but the camera is still as good as it was a month ago.
DIGLLOYD: Electronics and sensor being what they are, some processing might be necessary and proper given the nature of the medium. And I expect higher density sensors will do this silently to help with diffraction at the hardware level, if they are not already doing so.
At present, it is my assumption that Nikon does some black-level processing and this is why it is so cleaner at near-black compared to Canon. But it might also be sensor performance (probably both), and I don't have any inside knowledge here.
As far as I know, Canon has long been favored by the astronomy photographers because it allows image stacking to eliminate noise; this cannot be done if the camera is processing the low order bits to suppress noise (and faint stars).
One plausible hypothesis could be that the larger sharpness plane in the Z-axis (DOF) on Canon, could be a result of a combination of 1) blurring of the signal in the Low pass/AA filter, and 2) more aggressive in-camera sharpening algorithm after the AA blurring, resulting in a more widespread sharpness-plane in the 5D III compared to the D8000E.
It’s just speculations, but one never knows. Maybe you can try comparing with all sharpening routines, in the cameras (both) and in software, switched off?
DIGLLOYD: There has to be some reasonable cause to speculate and form a hypothesis. I do not deem this hypothesis reasonable. I shoot best quality raw only (max bits, lossless compressed), and it would be a terrific story to show that JPEG sharpening settings are actually sharpening the raw file with the Canon 5D Mark III, and that everyone on the planet has not noticed this. But this does not rule out silent electronic acutance enhancement in converting analog to digital.
Sensor designs including the cover glass can have significant effects and as per DxO, changes were made with the 5D Mark III yielding 15% better resolving power over the 5D Mark II (but this is not a claim I have verified).
Very interesting to see how unreliable pure pixel count may be to conclude about perceived image quality. The explanation hypothesis is of course quite speculative. We don't know exactly the filter design in both cameras, we also don't know what both parties mean with RAW -it might also be pre-cooked a bit.
I think I remember that Canon had annouced with the MkIII something like deconvolution image restoration, but I also don't know exactly.
Would be nice to have time to dig deeper in these things - yet the needs of practical picture taking with lenses are a bit distant from that.
DIGLLOYD: It is very hard to say what is the cause. But one thing stands out to me: the Nikon D7100 with its much higher pixel density does not seem to exhibit the D800E behavior. The D7100 has no optical low pass filter, though Nikon does not go into details on exactly what glass is used on the sensor. See Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar: Future Potential on ~56 Megapixel DSLR and How Does the Zeiss 135mm ƒ/2 APO-Sonnar Perform on a 56-Megapixel DSLR?.
On the subject of “cooking” the raw file: it seems likely that Nikon does this becuase the the dark tones are so clear in the near-black. Canon DSLRs have long been favored by astrophotographers because faint stars which might look like noise can be extracted by stacking 100 frames or more, something not possible witih a camera raw that smooths away near-black pixels.
As for “cooking” the raw file with deconvolution, from what I see with many small sensor cameras I would be surprised if this is not already being done, and it’s quite possible that the Canon 5D Mark III employs such an approach also.
As a prelude to showing a definitive D800E vs Canon 5D Mark III image sharpness comparison, this D800E vs Canon 5D Mark III study of relative image quality (noise, dynamic range) sets the stage for a balanced view of total image quality.
The comparison is an extensive one, assessing noise in RGB as well as noise in the red/green/blue/gray channels with multiple crops including showing a standard exposure and one in which the shadow values are brightened (as is often useful for landscape photography). Hence quite practical for real-world considerations.
Following up on yesterday’s commentary on D800E sharpness, the results were interesting enough that I wanted to rule out any possible error, so I reshot the whole thing today checking everything including using RawDigger to rule out any loss of highlight detail. All of which was a high precision and thus time-consuming effort, not exactly my favorite thing, but nothing is so persuasive as seeing exactly the same behavior.
I expect to publish my results by the end of day tomorrow.
Readers (two hysterical ones so far, making ridiculous and unwarranted assumptions) should take a deep breath. My reporting will be the same steady and thoughtful analysis as always.
Some users have not noticed the new login page for subscribers.
Read more about the login page.
The Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Distagon will be available in Sony NEX or Fuji X mount starting in June.
As far as the eye can see—
With an angle of view of 99 degrees, the Touit 2.8/12 wide-angle lens will soon become a firm favourite, particularly for landscapes and architectural photography.
Its unique T* multicoating guarantees maximum transmission and outstanding absorption of extraneous light. The result: breathtaking image quality from edge to edge and corner to corner of the entire image field.
What’s more, all moving parts of the Touit 2.8/12, conceived specifically for Sony NEX and Fujifilm X Series cameras, are engineered for extreme precision and a long working life. And finally, its strong and rigid metal bayonet mount makes it an absolutely dependable companion for many years to come.
See the notes on lens corrections for Zeiss Touit lenses on Sony NEX / Fuji X.
In a break with tradition, MTF charts are not provided with the Zeiss Touit line, unfortunate in my view.
| Focal length: | 12mm |
| Aperture scale: | f/2.8 - f/22 |
| Focusing range: | 0.18m / 0.59 ft - ∞ |
| Free working distance: | 0,10 m (0.33 ft) – ∞ |
| Angular field, diag./horiz. | 99° / 89° / 66° |
| Coverage at close range: | 1:9 220 x 144 mm 8.66 x 5.67 in |
| Number of elements/groups: | 11 elements in 8 groups |
| Entrance pupil position ( in front of image plane): | 61.6 mm |
| Flange focal distance: | E-mount: 18,0 mm (0.71′′) X-mount: 17,7 mm (0.70′′) |
| Rotation angle of focusing ring | 270° |
| Filter thread: | M67 x 0,75 |
| Weight (nominal): | E: 260 g (0.57 lbs) X: 270 g (0.60 lbs) |
| Dimensions (with caps): | E: 81 mm (3.19″) X: 86 mm (3.39″) |
| Camera mount: | Sony E-Mount Fujifilm X-Mount |
| List price: | TBD |
Note the emphasis on digital friendly ray angle. Chief ray angle is serious issue with rangefinder lenses adapted to Sony NEX or Fuji X.
With two aspheric elements and three elements made of special glass types along with floating element, this ought to be a very high performer.
The Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 Planar will be available in Sony NEX or Fuji X mount starting in June.
Magician of the moment—
The best of two worlds. Just like a 50 mm lens in 35 mm photography, the Touit 1.8/32 offers the same angle of view as the human eye.
However, optimised for use with APS-C format sensors, it is simultaneously a lens that is so light and compact that it can be taken along simply anywhere and everywhere you go.
Whether you are shooting portraits, landscapes or spontaneous snapshots, you will never cease to be amazed by what a Touit 1.8/32 can tease out of your camera.
It is quite simply the ideal companion for capturing perspectives and color and lighting moods in perfect pictures.
See the notes on lens corrections for Zeiss Touit lenses on Sony NEX / Fuji X.
In a break with tradition, MTF charts are not provided with the Zeiss Touit line, unfortunate in my view.
| Focal length: | 32mm |
| Aperture scale: | f/1.8 - f/22 |
| Focusing range: | 0,37 m (1.21 ft) – ∞ |
| Free working distance: | 0,29 m (0.95 ft) – ∞ |
| Angular field, diag./horiz. | 48° / 40° / 29° |
| Coverage at close range: | 1:9 214 x 142 mm 8.43 x 5.59 in |
| Number of elements/groups: | 8 elements in 5 groups |
| Diameter of image field: | 28,2 mm (1.11 in′) |
| Entrance pupil position ( in front of image plane): | 46,7mm (1.84′ in) |
| Flange focal distance: | E-mount: 18,0 mm (0.71′ in) X-mount: 17,7 mm (0.70′ in) |
| Rotation angle of focusing ring | 270° |
| Filter thread: | M52mm x 0,75 |
| Weight (nominal): | E: 200 g (0.44 lbs) X: 210 g (0.46 lbs) |
| Dimensions (with caps): | E: 72 mm (2.83″) X: 76 mm (2.99″) |
| Camera mount: | Sony E-Mount Fujifilm X-Mount |
| List price: | TBD |
The DxOMark folks are reporting that the Canon 5D Mark III per pixel sharpness is 15% higher than the 5D Mark II and moreover that it is in practice about as sharp as the D800.
Of course my reaction was one of skepticism: there is a ~28% linear resolving power advantage with the D800, so how could this possibly be? But I’ve learned to guard against assumptions over the years, because a result out of a camera system can be quite different from what one would expect from specifications.
I favor the Nikon D800E (vs D800) with its funky glass sandwich over the sensor, which is claimed by Nikon to be equivalent to not having any anti-aliasing (optical low pass) filter— no artificial blur. (From what I can tell, the smaller 24MP DX Nikon D7100 does not use this approach, but eliminates the extra glass layers).
But might Nikon’s thick glass sandwich interact with a lens in other ways that degrade its sharpness nonetheless? A lens design does have to compute in a sensor glass thickness for optimal results, particularly off-center. And I’ve suspected some per-pixel sharpness under-performance from the D800E sensor for a while now, but could never quite nail it down, never having quite found the right way to do so.
I have now done that exercise—several times in 1mm increments, using the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar, my new reference lens.
Each time the same curiosities manifested themselves: I can say unequivocally that the D800E is delivering far less per-pixel sharpness than its 28% linear resolution advantage over the Canon 5D Mark III ought to allow. And there are other peculiarities too, particularly at wider apertures. It is an exciting and disappointing finding, and I can only hope that Nikon gets its act together and delivers a pro body that extracts full resolution properly at all apertures.
None of this sharpness discussion should be confused with total image quality, where one must complement the Nikon D800E, and there I found no surprises.
Report to follow. The report will go into DAP, as this is a camera capability issue, not a lens comparison, and I don’t believe it has anything to do with any particular lens. However, it is relevant to what to expect with the 135/2 APO-Sonnar, so it will also be cross-posted in Guide to Zeiss.
After reading your blog entries day by day I want to make you a honest compliment: there is nobody out there in the web that reaches your level of sophistication, concerning the mix of so many aspects of photography: the combination of visual appeal, technical performance and usability aspects is singular in the whole "blog world of photography". (the only simliar site for is LL, many other colleagues remain too superficial.. and another collegue only focusses on the image quality..)
Your blog should be an open resource for the whole industry!
DIGLLOYD: My blog is open to anyone, my publications are how I make my living, and vital to affording me the luxury of writing my blog.
I often sometimes single-focus, but that is critical to the whole, as it provides a strong base for integrating other aspects.
My general goal is the whole imaging chain: the right tool for the job, how to get the best results from whatever camera you have, trends at play, and even my cycling web site dovetails into some aspects of photography.
Richard R writes:
I use my NEX 6 nearly all the time. Preferring its low light capacity to the more megapixels in the NEX 7.
“Low light capability” often means “did not compare fairly between cameras”. In this case, the NEX-6 might have a newer-generation sensor, so it could be a mixed situation.
In truth, all things being equal, a higher resolution sensor will have noise behavior every bit as good as the lower-res camera, and the oversampling will reduce other digital artifacts.
The mistake often made is to compare noise pixel for pixel, but this is inappropriate: when printing is done, images from two cameras having different resolutions by definition must be scaled proportionally more for the lower resolution camera. Consider a 4 megapixel camera and a 36 megapixel camera having the same per-pixel noise: the 4-megapixel camera is thus hugely more noisy for a print: its noise will be scaled by 3 times linearly (9X in area) as compared with the 36MP camera.
See How to Downsample and Sharpen an Image in DAP, along with Downsampling to Competing Sizes for examples of that nature.
There are also many noise studies in DAP. Most recently in Guide to Leica, see how noise was compared for the 24MP Leica M Typ 240 versus the 18MP Leica M9.
The official new name for the Zeiss lenses for Sony NEX and Fuji X: Zeiss Touit. To wit, Zeiss is actively targeting the Scrabble player market.
But where does “Touit” come from? This illustrious name was found through an intensive international selection procedure. We followed a concept that is already well established in the automotive industry: selecting certain themes for product names. As an example, one well-known German carmaker names its automobiles after types of winds and currents. We decided to derive the future names of the lenses from the Latin names of birds. That fits well, as birds usually have excellent eyesight and can take unusual perspectives. Birds are also diverse and lively animals. Furthermore, the Latin names all have an attractive sound and are common in many languages and cultures.
Touit is pronounced like the English “do it.” Touit stands for good visibility, agility, mobility and diversity, qualities which also aptly describe the new ZEISS lenses for mirrorless camera systems. The name Touit comes from the band-tailed parrots. This bird is very small and agile, and its plumage is deep green. The Touit parrots live in Latin America and the Caribbean in a wide range of different habitats, from damp-tropical island regions to lowland rainforests to thorn-bush savannas and even high in the Andes Mountains at altitudes of up to over 20,000 feet.
The first two focal lengths in the Touit family will be the Touit 2.8/12 and Touit 1.8/32. The names of the optics concept that have been used in product names until now (for example Distagon or Planar), as well as the T* symbol denoting the anti-reflective coating, will continue to appear on the front ring of the lenses. “With the Touit series, we are starting a completely new naming convention,” explains Martin Dominicus, Head of Marketing of the Carl Zeiss Camera Lens Division. “Our lenses will not only be unmistakable for their imaging performance, manageability and product design. Their name will also give this family of lenses a very unique identity.”
Equivalent to an ~18mm lens on a full frame camera, this is an ultra-wide angle design. My expectation is for it to outperform most full-frame designs by dint of being newly designed and optimized for the APS-C format and no need to design around an DSLR mirror box.
Equivalent to an ~49mm lens on a full frame camera, this is a moderately fast normal lens. The ƒ/1.8 aperture and new design give some hope for a very high performance design, with my wish being for a flat field and no focus shift.
Putting my recent post of Form Factor and Camera Appeal to a real-world trial, I stuffed the diminutive Sony RX100 into my jersey pocket and headed out for a multi-hour mountain bike ride on my Moots Mooto X YBB 29er. I also have the handy Richard Franiec stick-on grip on mine.
The Sony RX100 had impressed me last fall, but it did so all over again: small and light so that I scarcely notice it in a jersey pocket, the most natural fill flash I have found in any camera at any price (set to -1.7 slow sync), excellent exposure accuracy, very pleasing color, bitingly sharp centrally at close range at the 28mm setting.
The RX100 just gets the job done fast and without any of the size/weight hassles of larger cameras: no excuse for not taking it, no excuses for not getting highly satisfactory images. Its a real winner in my book for its combination of features for this type of use. Which is what any successful camera is about. Well, I do wish there were an EVF option, but its rear LCD is excellent even in bright sun.
This image is cropped down to ~12 megapixels. Note the perfect exposure in aperture priority mode, along with flash that is so natural one wouldn’t even know it had been used except for the catch-lights in the eyes.
No complaints on sharpness here. This is actual pixels below.
See the existing review of the Sony NEX-7.
Results with the new Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 and Zeiss Touit 32m f/1.8 E-mount lenses will be shot using the Sony NEX-7 and become part of Guide to Mirrorless. I expect the camera and lenses by late this week.
One has to wonder if a Sony NEX-7N (Sony NEX-9?) might incorporate an even better sensor having the same per-pixel quality and pixel density as the Sony RX100; just to speculate: that would be 60 megapixels, but 48 would be just fine with me. Offering raw output at native resolution, or at 3/4 or half the pixel count for elimination of digital artifacts—any form of native oversampling would be hot, and though I deem it unlikely, it is what *I* would do to shake up the market.
The Sony NEX-7 has dropped to about $948.
Sony did some things really well: built-in EVF, centered tripod socket so a camera plate does not block the battery/card door. In the context of its 2011 release date, it stands out as better done than most current compacts, and 24-megapixels to boot.
Equivalent to an ~18mm lens on a full frame camera, this is an ultra-wide angle design. My expectation is for it to outperform most full-frame designs by dint of being newly designed and optimized for the APS-C format and no need to design around an DSLR mirror box.
Equivalent to a ~49mm lens on a full frame camera, this is a moderately fast normal lens. The ƒ/1.8 aperture and new design give some hope for a very high performance design, with my wish being for a flat field and no focus shift.
A camera plate offers a fast and efficient way to mount the camera to a tripod (one with a proper Arca-Swiss style clamp at least).
That’s where the Really Right Stuff BNEX7-L comes in: use the base plate only, or include the “L” portion which allows a quick swap to the vertical (portrait) position.
Check this out: yesterday the offer ended April 27: $998 after a $200 instant rebate. Kinda makes you want to snap one up before it expires, right?
Thing is, today the offer is through June 1, and the price is now $948 after $250 rebate ($50 less), along with 2% reward and free shipping. Or $1098 with the kit zoom. Such pricing deadlines have the tendency to train buyers to hold out for a better deal.
There will likely be a new Sony NEX-7N within 2-3 months, but this pricing starts to look attractive in context of other APS-C cameras, and it’s unclear if a NEX-7N would be materially improved.
See Optical and Electronic Viewfinders: EVF + Optical + LCD = Synergy for an important discussion on viewfinders.
This discussion applies to an EVF or rear LCD when used in zoomed-in mode, something extremely useful in nailing focus precisely, especially with manual focus or adapted lenses.
Let’s survey a few implementations out there.
Grade: A (but 'B' when image quality fully zoomed in is considered)
Rear LCD, no EVF. One button press for zoomed in to level of magnification of choice. Zoom in to various levels, scroll around right out to almost the very edge of the frame. Mangled image display (subsampled) when fully zoomed in, but usable in practice with high accuracy.
Grade: A
Rear LCD, no EVF. Similar to the Nikon D800, a bit more restricted on how close to the edge one can get. Lower resolution, but arguably the Nikon is equivalent just by not zooming in fully.
Grade: C-
EVF and LCD. Center focus only, no zooming: this is as primitive and frustrating an implementation as one could imagine. It forced me to do all my comparisons only on subjects with something in the center—might this not affect composition in general?
Awkwardly-placed zoom button (could it have been worse?). No option to stay zoomed when pressing shutter, so context is lost. The auto-detect feature for focus movement often activates by accident with any camera motion.
Grade: B+
EVF or LCD (good!). One press to zoom in, but modal: to focus on a particular area, one must pre-select that area, then zoom in. A change requires choosing the AF area, confirming with button press, then zooming in again (3 button presses just to scroll a fraction of the frame in another direction).
It’s a frustrating experience: the 4-way controller could allow scrolling left/right/up/down. But it’s *way* better than center-only Leica M240.
Grade: B-
LCD only, and a marginal quality one at that. Similar limitations to the Fuji X100S except that zooming in is limited to the central 1/2 or so of the sensor. No support for contrast detect autofocus when zoomed in.
Grade: A-
LCD only (a real problem on a small camera). The plus/minus buttons are awkward in use, but one can scroll around freely at a variety of magnifications, and one button press zooms back out.
“Optical viewfinder” is defined here as one which allows focusing*.
My recent experience with the Leica M Typ 240 clarified one thing for me:
These are not redundant— each serves a useful purpose that the others do not.
The new Leica M Typ 240 is the only camera on the market that has all three: optical viewfinder with rangefinder focusing, EVF, rear LCD. But it falls short of being ideal: zooming to focus is restricted to the center of the image only. The Fuji also qualifies because its optical viewfinder allows autofocus operation (but no facility for manual rangefinder style focus).
I hope to see DSLRs designed to support an EVF appear on the market in 2013. For smaller cameras one will have to compromise with EVF + LCD, which is fine for those smaller form factors. What is weak is the LCD-only camera design.
To be clear, the connector supporting an EVF ought to support an EVF or larger LCD or any such device; an EVF is only one of many possible options.
* Hot-shoe mounted optical viewfinders are very expensive for good optics, crude for composing, make it guesswork to place the AF sensor precisely, TOTALLY useless for manual focus, and are without parallax correction or diopter correction or any display of settings of framing guides or similar.
See How to Hold a Camera Steady in Making Sharp Images.
Ideally, a camera should have three distinct ways of composing and focusing:
Let’s take each of these in turn.
A rear LCD is a poor choice in several cases:
In practice, a rear LCD (only) severely degrades the viability of a camera for all around shooting, and lowers the success rate, particularly in dim light.
Allows mass-coupling the camera to the head/body, making lower shutter speeds a far more viable option than holding the camera at arm’s length.
There are drawbacks to an optical viewfinder:
Like an optical viewfinder, allows mass-coupling the camera to the head/body, making lower shutter speeds a far more viable option than holding the camera at arm’s length.
An EVF has many positive qualities.
Still, while EVFs are getting better and better, none as yet lifelike; all suffer in varying degrees from contrast limitations, blowout of bright details or pure-black shadows or simply too-low resolution. Hence having an EVF an an optical viewfinder is very helpful in some lighting conditions.
Also some camera implementations are half-baked affairs: done right, one can zoom in and scroll around freely. Leica won’t allow any zooming at all, Sigma DP Merrill and Fuji are modal (choose a focus point, zoom in, but zoom back out if one wants a different focus point!). Who thinks this stuff up?
A camera with only a rear LCD forces the camera to be held away from the body.
Held with arms extended, the success rate for sharp images plummets at 1/125 second and lower (varies depending on focal length). But mass-coupled to the body with a viewfinder, the odds rise by at least 2 to 4 shutter speeds.
See How to Hold a Camera Steady in Making Sharp Images.
With my Nikon D800 or similar DSLR, I can generally make a sharp image as low as 1/8 second with proper technique and several attempts. And I have a fairly high success rate at 1/30. By success, I mean for truly sharp images, not sort-of-sharp almost usable images.
With a camera like the Sony RX1 (without its optional EVF), I found that anything 1/100 or slower comes with poor odds— holding the camera out at arm’s length is a recipe for blur.
A camera with a rear LCD (only) is literally a blur for some users.
An EVF with a diopter adjustment also mitigates having less than 20/20 vision.
As we age, our eyes lose their flexibility, pushing the close-focus distance out farther an farther:
Correcting for near-sightedness move the focus distance out as is my situation. Glasses might be used for some, but this does not address glare or camera shake.
A rear LCD suffers from glare.
Even when immaculate there is glare. With a little finger grease, sunblock, sweat or similar on the rear LCD, the glare can become a real impediment.
In working with a large number of cameras over the years, I’ve developed a very strong sense of what works and doesn’t work for me.
Traditionally the game was about megapixels and image quality, and everything else went along for the ride.
What if the new game is really about how much we like using the camera, how attractive it is, how few hassles it presents, the success rate for images, how portable it is, which lens is preferred, and so on? And NOT about the image quality? Just about simple stuff, like does it fit in a pocket or can I use it successfully at dusk?
This year is already bringing impressive image quality in point and shoots, and that leaves the ergonomic and fun factors as the primary decision point for most users. Image quality is way beyond good enough for most people; it is so good to be irrelevant any more (not to me and perhaps not to many of my readers, but for most of the population).
The overarching trend is about the enjoyment of using a camera, which means different things to different people (the act itself, or the results, or both). Hence the iPhone might be the most-used camera out there. But the iPhone has proven itself useless for my purposes (very high failure rate under my favored conditions), so it’s out. And I just plain hate using it to make pictures; it feels terribly awkward to me.
But this makes me wonder: if I could have an Apple iPhone Retina display on the back of my point and shoot, would I go ape-crazy over it just because the images look so darn good? There is that appeal too—immediate visual gratification.
What follows are intentionally immediate reactions I have to each of these small cameras:
All these cameras are dancing around the target, but none of them hit the bullseye.
I suppose what I’d like is the image stabilization of the Olympus E-M5, the sensor of the Sony RX1 but 36MP, a built-in high-res EVF, precision spot autofocus, good grip, simple menus without JPEG or video, and fast camera operation.
I have been enjoying your articles in the past few days. I am still not able to see how some of these newer, more compact cameras beat a D800E with one small lens like the 50G f1.8. The overall usability and workflow with the D800E are great. I like the RX100 with the grip, BUT using it is like using an iPhone...no viewfinder.
What do you think about the Sony A99 and A77 cameras? Are they a better compromise?
DIGLLOYD: The small cameras certainly do not beat a D800E in image quality. But they pass the “really good” mark for many applications. And my pockets don’t hold a D800E very well.
The RX100 gets a pass on the lack of EVF because it is so pocketable, though I wish it had one. As for the Sony A99 and A77, I’ll pass, what I want is both an optical viewfinder AND an EVF on my Nikon and Canon DSLRs; they serve different purposes, see Why an Electronic Viewfinder (EVF) is Not Really Optional.
It is difficult to find a camera which could satisfy any need, and therefore, i think that it is not irrelevant for an enthusistic photographer to own three cameras:
- a small pocket camera to have always one with you. I currently use a Canon S100 for that purpose,
- a top DSLR for art or beautiful (photograph skills depending...) photographs. I have a D800E, and it is really a fantastic camera. When I bought it, I abandonned zoom objectives and bought three fixed lenses (24/1.4, 50/1.8 ( a no brainer at the price!), and a 85/1.8). À réal pleasure which reminds me of my Rolleiflex 6008.
- a top quality camera but lighter than DSLR when one want to take nice picture without carrying to much stuff, or when one want something less visible. This third category seem quicly improving with the cameras that you mention (Nikon A, Fuji, Sigma DP, ...). In this category, I had a Leica m6, and later on went to digital and bought a Sony Nex5 when it was launched three years ago, but I sold it as objectives do not do justice to the camera ( or are too bulky for some recent ones). I am looking for a replacement, and the offer is increasing very quickly at the moment. Did you had a chance to test the new Ricoh GR V?
DIGLLOYD: Yes, I agree. One camera is ill-suited to all tasks. At present, for me this means Sony RX100 + Sigma DP Merrills + Nikon D800E + Olympus E-M5 (for cycling videos).
Expounding on APS-C is the new full frame, is there room in the market for a true honest to goodness photographer’s no-nonsense workhorse camera? Possibly APS-C, ideally full-frame, the same ideas apply regardless of size.
Every camera design on the market today exhibits design shortcomings, and usually outright glitches. No grip or poor grip, menus obfuscated with dozens of irrelevant settings, focus-reset and self-timer glitches, mangled or restricted Live View, extra parts just to apply a filter—you name it, each camera out there has what I consider things that should not have shipped.
The cause? Larding up camera design with kitchen sink checklist features, rather than thinking through the core usability issues and focusing on what should be ultra reliable (focus) and/or solve a real issue.
With APS-C now offering sensational image quality (D7100 sensor), consider the following camera (full-frame would be fine too):
And most important: when in doubt, leave it out.
A very thoughtful spec for a true photographer’s camera. So in your view, why is there no such thing on the market? Either the camera companies are woeful at market research, or that your spec list is a dream for only a tiny percentage of the camera buying market.
The shame is that for the digital cinema market there are all sorts of entrepreneurs releasing new cameras over the last few years, such as Red, Black Magic, etc. Where is the equivalent movement for still photography? We obviously can’t rely on the big Japanese camera companies to innovate in this space. We need some ‘Black Magic’ for still photography so to speak.
DIGLLOYD: My spec list is demanding and many compromises could be made, but at its core what I want to see solved is a focus on making the camera deliver on making images, and elimimate anything else not central to that mission. Yes, the core market is small, but it is also huge with the right combination of features: beginners benefit from simple and thoughtful design too.
A lack of real creativity runs through the C/N majors, along with a deep-seated cultural aversion to innovations which might not succeed, along with an established business to protect. Which over time means fiscal doom. These companies just don’t have any concept of a halo product, or that a “failure” of a truly innovative product might be the best marketing a company could buy. They are the anti-Apple, so seeing them introduce a really disruptive product into the market that would kill off their own existing product line... well if the queen had balls she’d be king.
In design, the hardest challenge is to cut back a design to its core, to its essence, and to throw away the first ten such designs by virtue of perfectionism. And to design such a product so well that it kills off its predecessors instantly. When that is combined with a fear of “failure” and a fast-evolving market, the result is to make incremental changes at these big companies: a focus on short term risk versus (no thought at all) on long-term existential risk (witness Kodak).
I give Canon and Nikon a “D” in terms of real innovation (more megapixels with essentially no change to form factor is not innovation). But I give Sony a B+ for its RX1, which breaks the price and sensor size mold for a compact, along with the RX100 which puts a lot of good stuff in one package together with an oddball size sensor. The point is that these two cameras came to market from Sony, and not Nikon or Canon. It shows a cultural willingness to break outside the mold, even if it’s only a big bulge and not a rupture. As I wrote some months ago, Sony vs Nikon and Canon — Lunch is Served, but WHO WILL EAT IT?.
It would probably take $5M dollars for a prototype camera to be developed along the lines I am thinking. But the cost barrier to entry are difficult: pricing for key camera parts makes it impossible to compete on price with the big guys (buying in lots of 1000 vs lots of 100,000).
There was a Pentax 645D Rebate ending March 31. B&H now has the Pentax 645D body only for about $8800.
See the review of the Pentax 645D in DAP.
I concur with your wish to see a fixed lens 56x56mm MF digital camera though it seems unlikely to happen, if only because demand would probably be low. However it set me thinking about the 18 months during which I owned a Pentax 645D system.
I sold the Pentax and its lenses - for reasons too tedious to go into - in favour of a Nikon D800 (I was already a very long time Nikon user). What struck me immediately and forcibly on using the 36mp D800 was how greatly inferior it was in IQ terms to the 40mp 645D. I had expected a slight difference in IQ but the Nikon was simply not on the same planet as the Pentax. Not only that, but the Pentax flattered the user - it was EASY to shoot images with superb IQ, whereas the Nikon was extremely difficult to get the best out of. That is, it wasn't hard to get pleasing images out of the D800, but very difficult to get image-files which were significantly better than those from the 12mp D700, my other FF camera-body.
It seemed as if the old divide in quality between 35mm (FX) and MF cameras still existed in exactly the same manner and degree (as in the days of film), in spite of pixel-count etc. Except at high ISOs, the Pentax trumped the Nikon in every way, in spite of the Nikon's sensor being a couple of generations later and presumably more sophisticated.
I wonder if this difference is something you have noted, and what you think the most likely reasons are for its existence.
Congratulations on the continuing high quality of your site; one of only two "must-view" sites on the entire internet, imho.
DIGLLOYD: The Pentax 645D does not have an anti-aliasing filter on its 40-megapixel 4:3 CCD, so the appropriate comparison is with the D800E, though the D800 model is the same except for necessary sharpening differences.
The 40-megapixel CCD sensor in the 645D is terrific, no doubt there. And admittedly a CCD image has a certain appeal over CMOS from what I can see, the Leica M9 vs M240 being the most notable case. It’s a real difference in style and I can see that some shooters would really respond to it (I did).
There is also a style difference that results from the format: the longer focal length. And also the aspect ratio. But with a 44 X 33mm sensor, this difference is not pronounced.
And I have to offer a caveat: I never did have a chance to shoot the D800E and the Pentax 645D at the same time; I had the Nikon D3x at the time.
“very difficult to get image-files which were significantly better than those from the 12mp D700, my other FF camera-body” means to me that something in the equation was an issue (lenses, technique, focus errors, post processing, etc).
But I have a hard time agreeing with the “not on the same planet” statement. The D800 has a wider dynamic range and better color accuracy and with top glass and sharpening produces 1st class images. Most of the Pentax lenses were disappointing, not even in the same league as Leica S glass, and lacking the sparkle I enjoy from my Zeiss glass.
"Not on the same planet" was an exaggeration and therefore unfair to the D800
I'll stick to my guns, however, in saying it can be a difficult camera to get the best out of; but having recently purchased the Zeiss 21 and the Sigma 35/1.4 I do see what a difference top-quality glass can make.
My Nikon lenses were probably not all of the first rank. And when still unsure of the D800's capabilities, I did eventually do some careful side-by-side tests with the D700 which showed that the D800 had better colour, contrast and detail. In the real world I still sometimes find those improvements to be elusive.
DIGLLOYD: Top glass is essential with the D800. To see what it can really do, the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar is instructive. The Sigma 35/1.4 is a good choice as is the Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon, though in truth most all wide angles of any brand really need improvement to fully exploit the D800/D800E. But the Pentax 645D has similar limitations.
Let’s go the opposite direction from APS-C is the new full frame.
Measuring my old 6 X 6 film at 56 X 56mm, here’s my fantasy camera: a fixed-lens camera with 56mm X 56mm sensor, somewhere in the 80-100 megapixel range.
Look, I’m compromising here: the Mamiya 6 X 7 was even larger (56mm X 70mm image area)!
This sensor size is not so far away from what exists today: PhaseOne offers a 53.9 X 40.4 sensor. So one could compromise that down to, say, 48 X 48 which is probably a better size all around for camera bulk and lens size, and yet still 2.6 times the area of full frame. Still, if the sensor can be made 56 X 56 or 52 X 52 would be a unique proposition.
Why a fixed lens? So that it can be optimized to deliver razor sharp corner to corner image quality optimized for the sensor. And so that it can be factory aligned perfectly to the sensor and so that that camera can build in a variety of lens corrections baked into the raw (but not distortion please).
Why a square sensor? Because the lens doesn’t have to be extra large to cover a rectangular shape. An oversize square sensor cropped still leaves a ton of pixels. I remember fondly my brief experience with the Hasselblad 503CWD (see also the Hasselblad 503CWD PDF description). And it only had a 36X36mm sensor.
For this imaginary camera (will it ever happen?), a 50mm f/2.8 lens would be peachy, and would be roughly equivalent to a 28mm f/1.5 on full frame. It would be OK if the lens were ƒ/4 too. The camera would not be small, but it would not be huge either. It would be stunning though, done right and produce images with a unique look.
As a former owner of Mamiya 6x6 and 6x7 Rangefinder Cams. I can confirm that they were not that big.. perhaps the AF electronics could need a bit more place in the lens tube, but all other aspects are crying for a cam like this..
The only major reason why I gave up the great Mamiya Cams (I also had the famous 43 mm superwide) was that the development and the films themselves became too expensive..
Especially a Merrill 6x6 would be a revolution;-), i believe..
The only problem could be, that a fast 2,8/50 mm WA lens could be would be too big/heavy, the former 60 mm lens for the 6x6 only had the "speed" of 4,0.., and the 50 mm for 6x7 only had 4,5...;-((
DIGLLOYD: I owned a Mamiya 7 II with three lenses for some years, what a great form factor for a huge piece of film. I also gave it up for development/scanning reasons.
A digital version might need to be larger to accommodate the battery, card slot and electronics, but it would not need the rangefinder if it had Live View and EVF.
Lens design has come a long way, so ƒ/2.8 in a 50mm might be viable (especially with in-camera correction of certain aberrations), but ƒ/3.5 or ƒ/4 might be a better choice.
Sigma will probably struggle to get to full-frame, so larger than that is not in the realm of consideration.
So if you are dreaming, why settle for a square sensor, why not round? Unless lens glass is carefully inspected and flaws placed deliberately, it is symmetrical and round, the image sensor ought to be too. With EVF the size of the mirror should not be a hindrance, so the only hangup is the cost of producing a round sensor.
DIGLLOYD: The camera I describe could be made today with today’s technology (possibly a slightly smaller sensor would be necessary).
I would not want a round sensor, so I’m not going to wish for one, but it also makes no sense: a round sensor area inscribed inside a square would take the same silicon wafer area: this would be silly to throw away that area, higher cost and fewer pixels. The lens would not vary in size either way very much, nor would I want a low quality “continuous corner” as per a circular image area (which I’d crop off 99% of the time).
Now a spherical sensor is another matter that is very lens friendly, but that is not going to happen anytime soon.
This would be the replacement for my beloved Makina 67 with the Nikkor 2,8/80mm fixed lens !
And don't we miss all the aesthetic tradition of the square format....actually I use the Nikon P310 for leisure photography because it has a programmable 1:1 ratio and would love to have that on my D800.
DIGLLOYD: we “all” are probably not the main market for digital cameras these days (think the iPhone generation), but perhaps we are the buyers for this imaginary camera, just as there are plenty of Leica M buyers. The D800 does have a 4X5 crop mode, but I just prefer to crop after the shot because I sometimes like another variant that what I had intended.
I have been following your recent writings on the subject of larger sensors in a smaller form size, not least as a professional photographer who earns his whole living through print sales and has used Rollieflex and Mamiya 7 cameras over many years in the past, but more recently Nikon D700, and now Leica M9P cameras.
The notion of a relatively compact camera not distant in weight and feel to say a Mamiya 7 with a standard lens and a big sensor as you outline, if executed well would be a camera I would be prepared to spend $15,000 on, and surely I wouldn't be the only customer.
What I find tantalising is the thought of camera manufacturers actually paying attention to propositions like yours? You seem to be asking the logical questions that might be on many peoples minds, and of I understand of course the business case implications, but at what place is the interface between what camera designers are thinking might sell and what would actually hugely excite buyers.
I also am very grateful for your tremendously high standards which have certainly influenced my buying decisions and I think more than balance your marvellously irreverent outburst some months back. In each case your desire for honesty triumphs. Thank you!
DIGLLOYD: I think the market is there (if one believes that medium format is a market!), but conversations here and there with various vendors indicate that not much interest exists for this type of product. Still, the landscape is changing fast.
The right company to do it? Zeiss comes to mind. Tons of experience in lenses for all size formats, experience with manual focusing lens design, and one of the few companies building lenses but not cameras (now that IKON is discontinued). Skip all the extra cruft, make it manual everything with a good histogram and high res screen for image review. Make a classic. Something pros and everyone else lusts after for sheet purity of purpose.
For that matter, why does Hasselblad waste its reputation on the Sony NEX-7 “Lunar”—a lipstick-on-a-pig* distraction—when they could be build something exceptional?
* Not really fair to the NEX-7 which is a very good camera in its own market segment, but in context of medium format cameras it is so.
As discussed in APS-C Emerges as “the new full frame quality”, there ought to be format-equivalent apertures with lenses: ƒ/1.0 for APS-C (equivalent to ƒ/1.4 on full frame), and ƒ/0.7 for Micro Four Thirds (M4/3).
Why do the smaller formats not have such lenses (with a few not so enticing exceptions)? Perhaps because the smaller formats are not yet deemed a serious market in which buyers would pay big bucks for a fast and well corrected lens. This might change in time.
In the meantime, one can shoot the Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux on Sony NEX, but it doesn’t really deliver the same effect: for the same field of view, one has to be considerably further from the subject. No, what is needed is ƒ/0.71 for an APS-C camera.
Below are two images from the Wide Aperture Landscapes page in Guide to Leica, on full frame. Full-frame is hard to beat for the rendering style, just as large format has its own classic look compared to 35mm or medium format.
Well, 2013 might be the year of the compact camera with APS-C sensor (generally with fixed lens, but I’d like to see a 28/50 “bi elmarit” myself). That trend might veer and split off into a full-frame variant too as per the existence proof, the Sony RX1.
Witness the Nikon Coolpix A (in the wild already), Ricoh GR V (about to arrive) on top of the Sigma DP Merrill and Sony NEX and Fuji X cameras and probably others that I’m forgetting: all compacts with very high image quality, most of them with a fixed lens but NEX and Fuji X offering interchangeable lenses.
This game is moving fast.
Micro Four Thirds cannot touch these APS-C cameras in terms of image quality, certainly not the sensational noise and color rendition of the Nikon Coolpix A and the oddball but bitingly sharp sensor of the Sigma DP Merrill series. And you can bet that a next-gen Sony sensor will knock your socks off.
Which makes me wonder about the viability of the Micro Four Thirds format: what is the point of insisting on such a small sensor when APS-C is now proven to afford very compact form factor possibilities? And with the industry’s heavy hitters behind APS-C and full frame (Nikon, Canon, Sony).
The M4/3 sensor is only 60% of the size of APS-C, yet cameras like the Olympus OM-D E-M5 suffer from noise at embarrassingly low ISO values and the Olympus E-M5 is actually a lot larger than entrants like the Coolpix A. There are smaller M4/3 camera bodies, but they are not materially smaller in a practical way, nor all that appealing.
The Sony RX100 is as small as I’d want to go, and there’s only a little wiggle room between the Coolpix A form factor and the Sony RX100 form factor. Where does that leave M4/3?
As for image quality, the Sony RX100 does amazingly well and arguably as good as the E-M5 sensor (maybe even better in some ways)—even though it’s smaller in area: as sensors improve APS-C is going to really rock, and the RX100 sensor size will get even better. So the M4/3 gang had better burn the midnight oil and this business about “new camera next fall” is a dangerous game plan for Olympus. But of course Olympus now has Sony as an ally, so a state of the art Sony sensor in M4/3 is a pleasing thing to contemplate.
But assuming that M4/3 achieves the same sensor quality gains as elsewhere, where is the broad-based industry support? Nikon and Canon don’t support it, and Zeiss has not committed to building M4/3 lenses, but has committed to Sony NEX and Fuji X. Ponder that—think 'traction'.
No fast lenses exist for M4/3. Lens speed is a relative measure: relative to format.
An ƒ/1.0 lens on M4/3 is about equivalent in DoF terms to ƒ/2.0 on full frame (depending on how one accounts for the aspect ratio difference). Hence most lenses for M4/3 are actually SLOW compared to APS-C or full frame. The flip side is that deep depth of field is more easily obtained.
ƒ/1.0 ~= ƒ/2.0
ƒ/1.4 ~= ƒ/2.8
25mm ƒ/1.0 ~= 50mm ƒ/2.0
12mm ƒ/2.0 ~= 24mm ƒ/4
24mm ƒ/1.4 ~= 50mm ƒ/2.8
50mm ƒ/2.0 ~= 100mm ƒ/4
75mm ƒ/1.8 ~= 150mm ƒ/3.5 “~=” means “approximately equals vs full frame”
Background blur possibilities with M4/3 are thus non-existent when compared to full-frame and there are very few options even with respect to APS-C. And the “look” of shorter focal lengths is less pleasing for some purposes, just a medium format has long been favored for full frame, or large format over smaller formats.
Take for example the full frame Sony RX1 with its 35mm f/2 lens. M4/3 could offer an equivalent which be smaller by perhaps 1/3, but it would need to offer a 17mm ƒ/1.0 lens. And if you’ve seen that Zeiss 35/2 lens on the RX1, I state bluntly that equivalent performance in a 17mm ƒ/1.0 on M4/3 is extremely unlikely.
Zeiss is offering Zeiss lenses for Sony NEX and Fuji X and presumably any other APS-C format that gains popularity. But as yet, not M4/3: to really exploit the M4/3 sensor size (keeping quality up and size/weight down), separate designs are required for the format. And yet the savings in lens size and weight will not scale down as much as the sensor size difference.
But the bottom line is the M4/3 has much more limited vendor support and hence its long term viability is in question: Nikon, Canon, Sony, Leica do not support M4/3. This is a very serious risk to the format.
I have always said - Olympus painted itself into a corner with 4/3. By designing their entire lens line for this size, it forever limited itself to this format. It cannot go bigger. Very foolish in my opinion. As a former OM system owner with quite a big investment, I was angered by their rejection of digital and abandonment of users like me.
DIGLLOYD: My statements above are not so much about megapixels as about total image quality and system value and options and the entire ecosystem. I do expect M4/3 to get to 32 megapixels or so, and it will probably cross a quality threshold in so doing as sensor technology evolves. But I don’t expect it to offer a superior form factor than APS-C except some (not that much really) advantage on lens size. And vendor support is also lagging.
Agree 100%. In fact, that was true two years ago – that’s why I went with a Sony NEX-5 instead of a M4/3 as an alternative back for my Leica M lenses. Since then, the progression to the 5N, 6 and 7 (or 7 and 6, to be more precise) have all been very impressive.
The rumored second version of the NEX-7 will likely surpass all but the highest end of the DSLR line ups!
DIGLLOYD: There are many things I really like about the E-M5 (super image stabilization, EVF + rear LCD, just fun to shoot in general), and several I really dislike (menus and buttons and high noise even at ISO 200 under some types of lighting).
Rumored cameras can have attributed to them magical properties. Will it have camera-like ergonomics or still feel toy-like as with current NEX?
But Sony is relentless and so NEX holds a lot of potential, as do spin-offs like the Sony RX1 and Sony RX100. And maybe Olympus will fill in the mid-range (imagine a Sony RX100 style camera with a M4/3 sensor now that Sony has invested in Olympus).
Micro four thirds is about lens size, not body size. Your examples quote single lens cameras and body only.
For low light I choose my full frame canon kit, but the Olympus OMD and its suite of nice fixed focal length lenses comes with me on travels.
DIGLLOYD: that’s why the APS-C Coolpix A body lens is no larger and probably smaller than even the Panasonic M4/3 pancake lenses. Ditto for Sigma DP Merrill, whose lenses are little different in size from comparable M4/3 lenses.
There really is not much difference in the size requirements for a high performing M4/3 lens versus a high performing APS-C lens. And M4/3 has not proven its potential at all: compared to full frame, lenses need to be 2 stops faster for equivalent DoF blur. Where are the ƒ/0.7 and ƒ/1.0 lenses in a variety of focal lengths?
APS-C ALLVIEW cameras will become relevant to me (and I suspect others) when the manufacturers start shipping weather-sealed bodies and lenses with in-body image stabilization. My EM-5 + 12–50 kit lens shrugged off sleet and volcanic ash driven by 50+ knot gusts during our last trip to Iceland. Try that with a Sigma DP Merrill!
The samples you provide online leave no doubt that the EM-5 trails the pack in terms of ultimate image quality. But I know that it's the camera that will bring home the most compelling images for my purposes. And I'd argue that the EM-5's sensor is good enough where previous m43 sensors were comically bad with obvious noise present even at the base ISO.
I'm looking forward to your continued coverage of this product space!
DIGLLOYD: weather sealing has never mattered to me in the outdoors, but I do avoid volcanic ash. As for “lenses with in-body” IS I presume that Andres means simply “in-body image stabilization” which is awesomely good with the E-M5 and a huge plus beccause any lens benefits.
I agree the E-M5 sensor is the first M4/3 sensor I would deem acceptable. But it shows its weakness nonetheless. Under some lighting conditions, even ISO 200 disappoints.
How can a RX100-sized Sony sensor be viable but a larger m43 Sony sensor not be viable?
Well, the answer is that there is no fixed-lens m43 camera (yet). Such a camera would slot in between the RX100 and the Ricoh GR and Coolpix A, both in IQ as in regard to size (of course a prime will normally be better and smaller than a zoom).
Or maybe the real answer is that m43's role as the most compact camera with an acceptable IQ is getting challenged. And while that is an important role for m43, it is not the only one. There are also the wide-focal-length-range, the high-IQ-lens-range, and the fast-ish-prime-lens all in comparatively small sizes roles.
DIGLLOYD: I never used the word “viable”. All of these cameras are way beyond viable.
The topic is where the future leads and whether M4/3 has a significant advantage over APS-C in reality. My hypothesis is that the theoretical advantages of M4/3 over APS-C are small, and even smaller in marketplace reality. And that this might spell the doom of M4/3 which already lags in multiple ways: slow lenses (for the format), no world-class lenses that are not also huge and heavy, no lens support from key vendors like Zeiss (not yet at least), aspect ratio of 4:3 instead of the commonplace 3:2, getting eaten from below by cameras like the Sony RX100, which deliver the pocketability and image quality for that type of use.
There are no fast lenses for M4/3, here M4/3 has failed in promise, see the discussion above.
The latest sensor technology (RX100) paired with a fixed lens that is designed optimally for the sensor can do wonders (though the RX100 lens is pretty weak by the poor choice of being a zoom). But the main thing is that the sensor in the RX100 is really good.
Were the Olympus E-M5 to use the same sensor technologyas the RX100 scaled up to M4/3, it would be ~26 megapixels and make M4/3 much more attractive. But most of the lenses are not up to this demands, which would require new lenses of nearly the size of APS-C lenses.
In this argument that arises between sensor sizes, the prevailing comparison always seems to be the image quality of the sensor and that you can get more detail and less noise out of a larger sensor. Although this is not an inaccurate statement I believe people are missing an equal benefit if not, in my mind, a greater benefit to having a larger sensor over a smaller one.
This benefit is not about how well the sensor sees a scene but how much of that scene it can see. A M4/3 size chip is just not able to see as much of a scene as is a 4x5 camera, at least not without taking a wide angle lens and bending the light as much as possible to fit that whole scene on to the smaller chip. Also a 4x5 size is able to show a greater level of 3 dimensionality then a smaller chip, due in part to a narrower depth of field. I have wanted to do a visual demonstration of this to show the same scene on a M4/3 camera thru 35mm, medium format and 4x5 with both the same focal length and then with the equivalent focal length, however I don't have great access to the larger formats.
I think this would be a great comparison for you to do and add it to the DAP (which I am now a very pleased member) as I think it's as valuable a comparison between the formats as image quality is. I would love to see the results myself as I have always put how an image feels and the look of the image before outright image quality and I think doing this test would demonstrate that greatly. And I hope that it might go towards slowing the increases of smaller sensors and promoted a renewed desire for even larger sensors then we have now, even if I doubt I could afford a 4x5 digital back.
DIGLLOYD: As stated these claims appear to be erroneous, unless I misunderstand them.
It is M4/3 that has a much wider range of focal lengths, and 4X5 lenses also have to “bend” the light in order to cover a very large format— this is very hard to do at high quality and with a fast aperture using a very large chunk of glass (area, grinding precision, etc), hence we see ƒ/5.6 or ƒ/8 or ƒ/9 or even ƒ/11 view camera lenses. And of course, 4X5 must be stopped down for more for equivalent depth of field.
Depth of Field (DoF) is certainly something that delivers a very different look across formats. A 4X5 camera lens needs 4-5 stops more stopping down for equivalent depth of field (e.g. M4/3 at ƒ/1.4 ~= ƒ/8 on 4X5), but the subject perspective is wildly different (same idea with full frame versus medium format), and this “look” is the quality attractive to some shooters. M4/3 completely loses this look, APS-C mutes it.
DAP already includes a number of depth of field evaluations, which I started some years ago. See D2X vs EOS: Depth of field and Focus and Practical Depth of Field for starters.
This sensor / film size / flavor of the day has been going on in the photographic industry for decades. In the 60's 35mm became the standard camera for general use. Kodak started the 126 cartridge in order to expand the ease of photography to the masses. Loading 35mm was a challenge but 126 was easy. Then the 110 format in order to make the cameras smaller and lighter. Keeping in mind that Kodak was the mover of all these formats in order sell more film. New cameras, back when Kodak actually made the camera, meant more Kodak product in the hands of the consumer. Photofinishing labs had to buy new machines and new paper sizes. Inevitably the paper was designed to help optimize what the film was able, or not able, to resolve. When things really started to stagnate in the '80's a consortium of companies (Kodak working with smaller point and shoot camera companies who had suffered the reduced popularity of 110) developed the Disc camera. Notice the trend to smaller and smaller formats. And lets not forget that some of the leaps in optical technology were developed on those lowly plastic cameras. The aspherical plastic "poured" (composite) lens on the Disc camera was ground breaking.
With 4/3 it was easy to see what was going on with Sony, Olympus, Samsung, Panasonic, Ricoh and others. Develop another format which will allow the sales of cameras and accessories. By making the 4/3 mount "universal" the exposure to having to produce a huge series of lenses is reduced and manufacturers can focus on what they can do best, market and build boxes for sensors. This new sensor approach permits greater margins, which is of course the end goal, as smaller sensors do not cost as much just as smaller pieces of film cost less. The price to the consumer allows for more profit and if the "pro" 35mm format increases in price then just keeping the perception of price value on the smaller format is easy. (Manufacturers can keep the price margin on full frame sensors high and that perceived value on the smaller system seems like a bargain).
Change body styles to keep the marketing alive and push the body (and/or new sensor) upgrade path.Once again the industry looks for ways to reinvent sales but it all comes back around. Back in "the day", Pentax, not satisfied with the smaller formats, created the Sport 35 full 35 mm point and shoot and Ricoh & Minolta followed immediately while Canon and Nikon 35 p&s took a while. Now you could have the fantastic image quality of 35mm with the vast assortment of films (slide, negative, B&W, pro, consumer) in an autofocus point and shoot. In the digital age we have micro 4/3rds, evolving to APS-C evolving back to 35. Guaranteed someone is going to come out with an interim APS-C / 35 middle size to market more new product. Sony as a sensor company might just be the Kodak of the 21st century driving camera changes to sell sensor formats. Judging by past history that might just happen again.
DIGLLOYD: Agreed, this is a natural evolution of the marketplace, with consumers picking the winners and loser. It is not image quality by itself, but image quality and the entire camera experience and industry support (e.g. lens options and variations on form factor). But as the other factors converge, the pressures mount on M4/3 and the differences shrink. That is the problem for M4/3.
Smaller film was a failure for good reasons: it was awful for anything but a snapsnot. M4/3 is not a failure for that reason; it is not a failure in any technical sense; it is merely a question of medium and long term market viability. M4/3 offers quality well beyond that necessary for most consumer use and is arguably superior for over what most consumers could ever get out of 35mm film.
The basic problem with going smaller with a digital sensor is that the fixed costs remain relatively inflexible: the body, the EVF, the LCD, the card slot, the tripod screw hole, the buttons and dials, the CPU and so on all are relative fixed costs regardless of sensor size.
Which leaves the sensor and optics as cost issues. Sensors are semiconductors and keep getting better and cheaper for any particular size sensor. What happens when a full-frame sensor approaches the cost of APS-C or even M4/3 does not? That cost has shrunk, but the other costs have not, so what is the point of the smaller sensor option?
Lenses also have fixed costs; an M4/3 lens doesn’t really cost much less than an APS-C lens: witness the quite high prices of Olympus M4/3 lenses. These costs become quite high for high quality M4/3 systems.
When all this is added up, the costs are largely fixed with only modest variation: witness the price of the Olympus OM-D E-M5 and assorted lenses; compare that to the APS-C alternatives. The truth is that M4/3 is not winning on price. Not on the camera body and not on the lenses.
With the sensor price on an inexorable dowward trajectory, an APS-C or full-frame sensor used in a mirrorless camera does not incur the expensive optical viewfinder and hence the total build cost asymptotically approaches that of smaller format cameras.
As a backup system for my M9, I use Olympus EPL5.
For people portrait (1 person), i used M9 for ultimate separation between subject and background.
As for the m4/3 system, i use it for:
1. group shots where i don't have to stop down too much so i can use lower power flash indoor.
2. outdoor environmental/landscape shots
3. travel, because of the low weight of lenses (14-42mm + 25mm summilux)
DIGLLOYD: the right or preferred tool for the right job.
See my review of the Nikon Coolpix A.
Readers know how grumpy I get when a camera is designed so that attaching a camera plate blocks access to the battery and storage card door.
It turns out that there is one plate that because of its offset screw slot design clears both the lens and the battery/card door: the Really Right Stuff B9 plate (attached so that the flange is at the rear of the camera).
The B9 plate is shown here; observe the offset screw slot which makes it work.
I’m told that Really Right Stuff will have a custom plate for the Coolpix A by mid-May.
If the Coolpix A weren’t so darn expensive at abut $1100 (before extras like the UR-E24/HN-CP18 filter/hood nuisance), or at least it had a built-in EVF, then I’d be sorely tempted: the lens and sensor are sensational together.
I expect that Nikon has overpriced it given the evolution of the market right now, and new entrants like the about $796 Ricoh GR V will provide competition to bring the price down. Neither camera offers an EVF (electronic viewfinder) and both offer very expensive optical viewfinders, which is an affront to anyone with advancing presbyopia.
It does make me wonder about the viability of Micro Four Thirds when APS-C compacts are sprouting like mushrooms.
In addition to the RRS B9 plate, the Kirk "Universal Point & Shoot" plate also works well on a lot of these smaller cameras, and has multiple slots so the user can choose the best fit for the particular application. I'm not normally a fan of Kirk products, but I do have one of these.
DIGLLYD: I have not tried this my plate myself. I’m told that Really Right Stuff will have a custom plate for the Coolpix A by mid-May; a custom plate is always the best fit.
Added to Making Sharp Images is a detailed case study from ƒ/2.8- ƒ/16 using the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon on the Nikon D800E showing how field curvature, MTF and choice of focus interact.
It’s not easy to show field curvature well, but this study turned out well, and it should be of some help to anyone shooting the 15/2.8 Distagon.
This study was previously published in Guide to Zeiss.
How accurate does focus need to be to extract the very best from the 50mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M ASPH on the 18-megapixel Leica M Monochrome? And is there a focus shift to account for?
A from ƒ/2 through ƒ/8 is shown for each of six bracketed positions.
Focus Study (Leica M Monochrom, Dolls)
I should have these two new Zeiss lenses by May 3rd for testing on the 24-megapixel Sony NEX-7. See my previous notes on the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 and 32mm f/1.8.
See also my review of the Sony NEX system which includes pages on the existing Sony/Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 Sonnar.
As these are lenses for Sony NEX and Fuji X, review coverage for these two lenses will go into Guide to Mirrorless (DSLR lenses for Nikon and Canon go into Guide to Zeiss).
As with all tests, it’s a lot easier to shoot reliably when a camera plate offers a fast and efficient way to mount the camera to a tripod.
That’s where the Really Right Stuff BNEX7-L comes in: use the base plate only, or include the “L” portion which allows a quick swap to the vertical (portrait) position.
As I write this, the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar is IN STOCK at B&H* for Canon.
Canon users in particular should study the comparison of the Zeiss 135/2 APO-Sonnar to the Canon 135mm f/2L.
See my in-depth review of the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar, including coverage and comparison with Nikon and Cano lens, and even performance on the Leica M Typ 240.
Readers often inquire what the “best” lens is. This is usually a complex question. Not so with the 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar: the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar is the highest performing lens in the entire Zeiss ZF.2 / ZE lens line, indeed one of the highest performing DSLR lenses available today (maybe the best), and is thus a must-have for any serious shooter.
* Bookmark the Zeiss Gear page for in stock status in general; the buttons are updated twice per hour with in stock status, so you can see at a glance what’s in stock or not.
See my in-depth review of the superlative Zeiss 15m f/2.8 Distagon in Guide to Zeiss.
Get the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon at B&H Photo for about $2950.
I will start this email by trying to describe my initial thoughts about shooting with my newly purchased Zeiss 15/ 2.8 ZE. I think they were something along the lines of, "Ummmmm - holy $hit is this lens unbelievable." I ordered the 15mm through your links to BH and I shot my first shots with it today, to test the performance in horrible lighting conditions, with all sorts of high-contrast edges, strong backlighting, etc. Unbelievable what this lens is able to control.
I often shoot vehicle interiors for investigation of motor vehicle collisions and this was one of my primary motivations for finally breaking down and spending the money on this lens. The tight spaces, small working distances and horrendous lighting (bright sunny day in a salvage yard, with the vehicle interior like a cave) all conspire to make shooting a detailed set of data in such conditions a nightmare. I have tried remote flashes in the interior (bounced off of the headliner to spread the light) as well as a Lupine Betty to get continuous and predictable light into the interior, but the lighting is too uneven for overall shots, and deep shadows hide potentially useful information - HDR imaging is a natural solution, but I would shoot with a Canon 15mm full frame fisheye and the images were distorted and peppered with fringing and color issues.
The Zeiss 15mm is a revelation. Attached is a quick HDR vehicle interior study - the first images I shot with the new lens, mounted to a 5DII.
All of the things that make images bad get even worse when you merge them to an HDR dataset. The 15mm ameliorates all of those problems, with a working distance that is perfect. This HDR data was shot handheld using LiveView to focus - 7 images 1EV spacing. The flare control makes shooting the severely overexposed shadow detail images a joy now, no purple shifting in the shadows from the flare that can result during such massive overexposure under contrasty lighting conditions. The tonemapped shadows are pure color now, so that the backpack and water bottle lid in the attached image are their actual colors, not tinted with a flare color.
No lens corrections were necessary. Just fantastic. The attached image was shot at f/5.6 - I could have stopped down to about f/11 and gotten focus extended into the immediate foreground but I wasn;t really too concerned about it, and 1/30s was starting to challenge my handholding limit (I suppose I could up the ISO, but then the noise creeps in).
Thanks again Lloyd for making your insight and detailed review and sample images available to me - they really helped me to justify spending the money on this lens. It is expensive for me but worth every penny.
DIGLLOYD: This sums it up pretty well: forget the resolution charts (where it’s a winner) and pay attention to total image quality under difficult conditions. The 15/2.8 Distagon is highly corrected in so many ways that it is a joy to use.
It had a long and very successful run, making its mark on the digital landscape for still photography, but even more so for video where it received great enthusiasm.
Apparently Canon has finally sold the last of its stock, leaving the Canon EOS 5D Mark III as the highest megapixel Canon option.
Canon is running a rebate program on Canon CN-E Cine lenses.
$500 off a prime, $1000 off compact zoom, $2000 off cinema zoom.
The Sierra Nevada are still nevada, but channels in deep snow cut through by plows open the roads a bit earlier than the snow would otherwise melt off.
As noted a few days ago, Tioga Pass in Yosemite Might Open around May 11, but Sonora Pass just to the north is now open according to Dennis Mattinson of the Eastern Sierra Weather Center.
Without the passes open, it’s hours of extra driving to get to the Eastern Sierra, as well as making some areas inaccessible (Yosemite in particular).
See also the CalTrans road conditions site.
In Guide to Mirrorless, I’ve matched field of view for the dissimilar focal lengths to give a revealing look at the Nikon Coolpix A vs Fujifilm X100S vs Fujifilm X100 for good measure.
The Fujifilm X100S and Nikon Coolpix A have a nearly identical resolution, and both have 14% more sensor resolving power than the Fujifilm X100 (about 30% more pixels).
Fujifilm X100:
4288 X 2488
(10.66 megapixels)
Fujifilm X100S:
4896 X 3264
(15.98 megapixels) +14%
Nikon Coolpix A:
4928 X 3264 (16.08 megapixels)
+14%
You touched on this a bit in your post today, I think by far the biggest problem these days is that whilst lens sharpness and sensor resolution just keep getting better better, but focus accuracy and usability hovers around the same level. This means the percentage of shots that are as sharp as they can be decreases with each successive generation of cameras.
Phase detection hardware may be operating near the limit of what can be achieved however there are however some really simple software fixes that would go a long way to alleviating focus problems. Quality software engineering comes at a price, but once the price is paid these improvements can be rolled out across umpteen-thousand units at no additional cost. A few ideas of the top of my head, which have no doubt occurred to others previously:
* Focus bracketing - works just like exposure bracketing but for the focus distance. Would be nice if you could chose the number of shots, but I'd accept three. Memory is cheap and this would do the job in many situations where you need to shoot quickly.
* Post-shot focus confirmation. Use a similar method to focus peaking to give a quick auditory notification if the AF system missed so you can quickly reshoot, instead of having to take the camera away from your eye, turn on the rear LCD, slowly zoom in to 100% then scroll to find the part of the image where the focus point was supposed to be. Could detect camera shake also.
* Auto calibration of phase detect systems using live view. Shooting an appropriate target with PDAF and then compare that result with the camera's own closed loop contrast detect AF system to detect systematic errors. Ideally this could be performed at different distances with different lenses and under different lighting conditions.
* Picture in picture live-view. Chose two points of the image and display them magnified side by side. Great for checking depth of field, working with tilt-shift lenses, checking field curvature or simply shooting portraits of two people.
The last one might depend on the hardware reading the image sensor, but everything else could be accomplished with existing units if manufacturers were willing to take the risk, or even open up the platform for third party development (think of how much more Magic Lantern would have achieved given access to the right documentation)!
DIGLLOYD: I agree that certain things could be done, particularly in the DSLR world where room for improvement is ample, but the suggestions above are limited in scope of applicability, and all of them have drawbacks or limitations.
The entire imaging and usability chain has to be involved: this is a hardware issue first and foremost:
Software can do its best with the hardware problems all addressed. Anything else tends to be a Band-Aid, a work around.
As a case in point, the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar is a joy to focus. Why? Because its wide open performance is so high that there is no ambiguity in ideal focus. That is the fundamental impediment to focusing most lenses: low micro contrast wide open. And the APO-Sonnar has excellent focus throw to make it physically possible to focus precisely.
Autofocus algorithm: we don’t get a choice of focusing algorithms: focus fast or focus absolutely accurately? Phase detect is assumed to have to happen ASAP. For contrast-detect (focusing off the sensor), what I see in Canon is an incremental stepping algorithm that tends to be highly accurate. What I see with Nikon CDAF is a rapid-fire back and forth herky-jerky adjustment that often is off just a little and probably suffers from hysteresis too. So it is my belief that the choice of focusing algorithm exerts an influence, and that can be addressed in software. But to be fair to Nikon, let’s see Canon AF perform as well for a 36+ megapixel camera as on a 22MP.
Focus bracketing might have limited uses and therefore be of some value, but it is problematic for many reasons. I already have too many images to sort, the image is missed if a facial expression changes, low shutter speeds mean some images are no good even if focus is spot-on, framing varies a little. And if one cannot designate the desired focusing spot precisely in the first place, how is the camera to make an evaluation for “best shot”. Does the camera account for focus shift? (no).
Lens calibration can help for an accuracy problem (move the average result right onto the center of the bullseye), but does not solve precision issues (tight repeatable grouping).
For Nikon AF in particular, my conclusion is that precision has been the issue, at least with the low contrast of fast ƒ/1.4 lenses; even the eye has trouble with such lenses. But precision is not addressed by lens calibration.
As per Wikipedia, accuracy and precision:
The accuracy of a measurement system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity to that quantity's actual (true) value.
The precision of a measurement system, also called reproducibility or repeatability, is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results.
A measurement system can be accurate but not precise, precise but not accurate, neither, or both.
Great thoughts in today's post on autofocus accuracy, to which I'll add this:
Especially when compared to ad-hoc focus solutions such as focus bracketing, cameras based on computational photography show another way forward. Consider the Lytro camera (www.lytro.com) as currently released. Stated generously, it's best viewed as a technology preview. The sensor size and final rendered pixel counts are low by digital still camera standards, and I think the form-factor and handling leave much to be desired.
But this reconfiguration of sensor, optics, and processing can be viewed as way to trade the complexity of autofocus for final image quality in a way that leapfrogs conventional downsampling. From comments in public interviews, I guesstimate that Lytro's camera has a 10-to-1 ratio of full-color image sites to final pixels. If we're approaching 140 MP full-frame sensors, then imagine having a 14 effective megapixel camera which can't miss the desired focus and depth-of-field, because those attributes are no longer fixed at shot time. A camera where the shot-as DOF and focus point are, like RAW white balance, merely convenient annotations to the photographer.
DIGLLOYD: agreed in general, but with the very important stylistic differences in lens rendering, I am not so sure that a light field camera will be nearly so appealing, even if it had 500 => 50 megapixels sensing: another tool is always welcome however.
As I wade through so many different new cameras, what has become clear is that they are all getting really, really good at image quality. The Sony RX100, the Nikon Coolpix A, the Sigma DP Merrill and so on.
But every one of them misses the mark on usability in some way. Some are better, some are worse, but they all manifest the same disease: a failure to think through the feature set, which can be termed fairly, the “kitchen sink” design approach. Meaning not so much bad design (the result), but a failure to think about design in a meaningful way (the cause). Inertial design crossed with kitchen sink.
Even the new Leica M Typ 240 is showing symptoms of this malaise, though less than most. Still why can’t I reprogram that video button and hide all video settings?!
All suffer from a failure to think about the usability and ergonomic aspects: the non-existent grip, the unhelpful size and position and arbitrary grouping of buttons, the absence of tactile feedback, the fiddly controls that are too small for stiff or arthritic or gloved hands, the lack of an EVF for older shooters (presbyopia). And so on.
Next, add in the growth of menus and apps and modes and endless multi-level lists of settings. A simple decluttering exercise is in order. For example, consider just three global settings that could hugely simplify the design for many shooters:
Decluttering is low hanging fruit. Really good design is much harder, but for starters cleaning up the mess would help.
Mailing Lists
RSS Feeds
Twitter
Contact
+
