Olympus 25 mm f2.8 pancake lens review: small really is beautiful
Wednesday 15 July 2009 Filed in: Reviews
I love
pancakes. There is no better breakfast. But surely
there have to be much better lenses than the flattened
and presumably optically compromised pancake lenses
that the likes of Pentax and Olympus are serving up?
With that in mind, I set out to get a taste of the
Olympus 25mm f2.8 pancake lens made for the four-thirds
mount, which, given the 2x crop factor due to the
four-thirds sensor size, translates into the equivalent
of a normal 50 mm lens on a 35 mm full-frame camera.
From a practical point of view, small is nearly always more desirable when it comes to portability but, almost inevitably, in photography small is a signal that image quality has been sacrificed on the altar of convenience. Read More...
From a practical point of view, small is nearly always more desirable when it comes to portability but, almost inevitably, in photography small is a signal that image quality has been sacrificed on the altar of convenience. Read More...
Canon 5D Mark II: great mind, shame about the body
Saturday 20 June 2009 Filed in: Reviews
But Canon, bless their socks, just seemed to have the innovative edge: autofocus, in particular, was where they shone. Then image stabilization in lenses. Both significant attributes for a wildlife photographer. And, finally, when it came to digital, there they were leading the pack again. The Canon D30 was, and remains, a masterful camera. Forget that it was made of plastic, had a miniscule 3 megapixels and cost me $9000 New Zealand dollars: per pixel, I don’t think there has ever been a better camera.
Fast forward to 2009: the Canon 5D Mark II finally arrives in New Zealand. Read More...
Point and Shoot Cameras (P&S) versus DSLRs
Tuesday 09 June 2009 Filed in: Views
Like many, I have been
patiently searching – oftentimes, impatiently waiting –
for a small, carry everywhere camera that can deliver
great image quality. I’ve looked at most of the likely
contenders, principally those from Canon, Panasonic and
Leica - but
they all came up short in the image quality stakes.
For a while (which proved to be considerably shorter
than the time it took for the DP1 to write files to a card), I
thought that Sigma had answered my prayers to the
Camera Gods. Alas, usability – or rather, a lack of
it – let down the Sigma DP1 as surely as the
ham-fisted way Panasonic, in a misguided attempt to
deal with noise, smeared detail in images taken with
their cameras.
All those manufacturer’s have put out recent successors: Canon G10, Panasonic LX3/Leica D-lux 4, and Sigma DP2. And, while they are all improvements to some extent, the basic problems with each manufacturer’s offering remains: the Sigma is still as slow as a dead tortoise and the Canon et al are, truth be said, still victims of their tiny sensors – unable to deliver DSLR-like quality when the going gets tough; which in photographic-speak means, when the light levels drop below anything that would have you reaching for your sunglasses.
I await with interest and something bordering on desperation for the imminent release of the Olympus micro four-thirds (m4/3) camera, the E-P1. It is my one last hope that the possibility of a small Decisive Moment Digital camera (DMD), as Mike Johnston refers to this elusive photographic tool over at The Online Photographer, is a reality and not just a dream.
In the meantime, however, I was struck by another thought: perhaps this search for peak performance in a small camera is not so important? That it’s like concentrating on the top speed that a car can do when we mostly drive it at 60 mph or less. What got me thinking this way was reviewing some of my images taken with a Canon G9 and being pleasantly surprized at how good some of them were: admittedly, they had all been taken at low ISOs (the equivalent of keeping well within the speed limit) and in good light – but for the resolutions one would typically use to display them on the web or for prints up to, say, 14 x 11 inches, I wondered whether we were not agonizing unnecessarily. Perhaps, under such circumstances and for such purposes, which would cover the way the majority of us use our photos, these top-of-the-line point and shoot (P&S) cameras were already delivering results that were essentially indistinguishable from a Digital Single Lens Reflex camera (DSLR)? Read More...
All those manufacturer’s have put out recent successors: Canon G10, Panasonic LX3/Leica D-lux 4, and Sigma DP2. And, while they are all improvements to some extent, the basic problems with each manufacturer’s offering remains: the Sigma is still as slow as a dead tortoise and the Canon et al are, truth be said, still victims of their tiny sensors – unable to deliver DSLR-like quality when the going gets tough; which in photographic-speak means, when the light levels drop below anything that would have you reaching for your sunglasses.
I await with interest and something bordering on desperation for the imminent release of the Olympus micro four-thirds (m4/3) camera, the E-P1. It is my one last hope that the possibility of a small Decisive Moment Digital camera (DMD), as Mike Johnston refers to this elusive photographic tool over at The Online Photographer, is a reality and not just a dream.
In the meantime, however, I was struck by another thought: perhaps this search for peak performance in a small camera is not so important? That it’s like concentrating on the top speed that a car can do when we mostly drive it at 60 mph or less. What got me thinking this way was reviewing some of my images taken with a Canon G9 and being pleasantly surprized at how good some of them were: admittedly, they had all been taken at low ISOs (the equivalent of keeping well within the speed limit) and in good light – but for the resolutions one would typically use to display them on the web or for prints up to, say, 14 x 11 inches, I wondered whether we were not agonizing unnecessarily. Perhaps, under such circumstances and for such purposes, which would cover the way the majority of us use our photos, these top-of-the-line point and shoot (P&S) cameras were already delivering results that were essentially indistinguishable from a Digital Single Lens Reflex camera (DSLR)? Read More...
Olympus E-3: Initial Impressions
Sunday 12 October 2008 Filed in: Reviews
Well,
Canon did as predicted at Photokina: finally producing
the Canon 5D Mark II and pretty much fulfilling
expectations if not hopes. Much more resolution. A
bigger, better screen. Supposedly better high ISO
performance. The downsides: the autofocus system has
been left untouched. Weather sealing is perfunctory:
enough to put it on the brochure, but not enough to
give anyone confidence to risk a $2700 USD camera in
the rain or at the beach. I’ll get one, for sure. For
landscapes and portraits it is, on paper at least, the
top of the leader-board. But, alas, the handicapped and
antiquated autofocus system and its continued
vulnerability to the elements means that it cannot be a
one-stop solution for all my photographic needs.
Step up to the plate: an Olympus E-3. Sporting a sensor only half the size of the 5D Mark II and a relatively paltry 10 megapixels, it has something that other four-thirds cameras do not: probably the best weather sealing on the market (of any camera), a brilliantly fast autofocus system, and a decidedly large viewfinder. The smaller sensor means that the focal length of a lens needs to be multiplied by 2 to give its equivalent length on a camera with a full-frame 35 mm sensor such as the Canon 5D Mark II. Thus, a 50-200 mm f2.8-3.5 lens is the equivalent of a 100-400 f2.8-3.5 lens used on a 5D: a definite plus for things like wildlife photography. In addition, the E-3 comes with image stabilisation built into the camera body. Sounds good so far – but how did it pan out in the flesh so to speak.
I’ve had the E-3 for less than two days, so this is simply a record of my immediate impressions. Read More...
Step up to the plate: an Olympus E-3. Sporting a sensor only half the size of the 5D Mark II and a relatively paltry 10 megapixels, it has something that other four-thirds cameras do not: probably the best weather sealing on the market (of any camera), a brilliantly fast autofocus system, and a decidedly large viewfinder. The smaller sensor means that the focal length of a lens needs to be multiplied by 2 to give its equivalent length on a camera with a full-frame 35 mm sensor such as the Canon 5D Mark II. Thus, a 50-200 mm f2.8-3.5 lens is the equivalent of a 100-400 f2.8-3.5 lens used on a 5D: a definite plus for things like wildlife photography. In addition, the E-3 comes with image stabilisation built into the camera body. Sounds good so far – but how did it pan out in the flesh so to speak.
I’ve had the E-3 for less than two days, so this is simply a record of my immediate impressions. Read More...
Is Canon Winning the Battle but Fighting the Wrong War?
Sunday 31 August 2008 Filed in: News
If you are
like me, you’ve been sitting waiting patiently for
Canon to produce a replacement for the 5D. Its arrival
has been rumoured to be “imminent” for over a year now.
In that time Nikon has brought full-frame digital
photography to a host of new users: first with the D3,
second with the D700. As Photokina – the German-based
photographic exhibition – approaches, the rumours have
intensified to a frenzy. Chief among the attributes of
the supposed new camera is the pixel count. The Nikon
D3 and the D700 both boast a resolution of 12
megapixels, similar to the current Canon 5D. If the
rumours are to be believed, the Canon 5D Mark II (or
whatever it’s called) could have anything from 16 to 21
megapixels.
And, yes, there’s a part of me that applauds that; a part of me that has been seduced by all the hype: bigger is better...at least when it comes to tax cuts, dessert portions and photographic file sizes. Except, when I stop and think about it, the reality is far different. I have a Canon D30, which produces a paltry 3 megapixel file – and yet the photos are of sufficient resolution that I’ve had them published in books, calendars, on magazine covers, and printed them as large as 24 x 16 inches. The main advantage of larger file sizes comes when cropping of an image may be desirable. Even so, 8-10 megapixels should provide enough latitude for cropping in most circumstances: if you need to do more than that, then you’ve probably used the wrong lens in the first instance or failed to give enough consideration to composition at the time the image is taken.
The reality is that for most of us all the time, and some of us most of the time, we only see the benefits of resolutions beyond 10 megapixels when we are pixel-peeping on a screen. Large-scale prints for landscape photography is one situation where really high resolutions are desirable – but come on, how many of us are really into doing that? The answer is: not many.
Nikon seems to understand this. A 12 megapixel D3 or D700 is more than adequate for most. A new camera with a 24 megapixel sensor will satisfy those that need to print really large (and those that cannot be bothered with lens choice or composition too). Nikon understands that it is the features that affect the usability of the camera that are important once adequate resolution has been achieved. Included among these are speed – such as the autofocus and tracking abilities; the resolution of the LCD monitor for reviewing captured images; the waterproofing and sealing of the camera; lowlight capabilities -– especially as enhanced by high ISO performance. In all these areas, the Nikon D3 and D700 trounce the Canon 5D.
I have sufficient money tied up in Canon glass that it creates what appears to be loyalty but in reality is inertia. I really want Canon to produce a killer 5D replacement – but it is not increased resolution I am after, it is things that will help me capture images in situations where I might otherwise not be able to. I want fast and accurate autofocus, an LCD monitor that shows me what I’ve got rather than leaves me guessing, waterproofing and sealing that will allow me to use the camera in situations where I would hesitate now, and cleaner high ISO images for situations where I need to keep the shutter speed up or work in low light.
According to the rumours, we can put money on Canon staying ahead of their competition when it comes to resolution. But when it comes to the usability factors, it seems that Canon will be playing “catch-up” and, if the rumoured specs of the 5D Mark II are to be believed, in some areas it may struggle to get even close.
Canon reminds me a bit of those World War II Japanese soldiers isolated on Pacific islands and continuing to fight a war that had long since ended. It’s time for Canon to turn their considerable expertise to the enhancement of the camera as a tool rather than its transformation into a telescope. I hope the next few days will prove the rumour-mongers wrong and that Canon’s next iteration of the 5D will concentrate on features that allow me to take better photographs more easily, rather than just larger ones. Otherwise, a Nikon or, even, an Olympus E3 may be in my future.
And, yes, there’s a part of me that applauds that; a part of me that has been seduced by all the hype: bigger is better...at least when it comes to tax cuts, dessert portions and photographic file sizes. Except, when I stop and think about it, the reality is far different. I have a Canon D30, which produces a paltry 3 megapixel file – and yet the photos are of sufficient resolution that I’ve had them published in books, calendars, on magazine covers, and printed them as large as 24 x 16 inches. The main advantage of larger file sizes comes when cropping of an image may be desirable. Even so, 8-10 megapixels should provide enough latitude for cropping in most circumstances: if you need to do more than that, then you’ve probably used the wrong lens in the first instance or failed to give enough consideration to composition at the time the image is taken.
The reality is that for most of us all the time, and some of us most of the time, we only see the benefits of resolutions beyond 10 megapixels when we are pixel-peeping on a screen. Large-scale prints for landscape photography is one situation where really high resolutions are desirable – but come on, how many of us are really into doing that? The answer is: not many.
Nikon seems to understand this. A 12 megapixel D3 or D700 is more than adequate for most. A new camera with a 24 megapixel sensor will satisfy those that need to print really large (and those that cannot be bothered with lens choice or composition too). Nikon understands that it is the features that affect the usability of the camera that are important once adequate resolution has been achieved. Included among these are speed – such as the autofocus and tracking abilities; the resolution of the LCD monitor for reviewing captured images; the waterproofing and sealing of the camera; lowlight capabilities -– especially as enhanced by high ISO performance. In all these areas, the Nikon D3 and D700 trounce the Canon 5D.
I have sufficient money tied up in Canon glass that it creates what appears to be loyalty but in reality is inertia. I really want Canon to produce a killer 5D replacement – but it is not increased resolution I am after, it is things that will help me capture images in situations where I might otherwise not be able to. I want fast and accurate autofocus, an LCD monitor that shows me what I’ve got rather than leaves me guessing, waterproofing and sealing that will allow me to use the camera in situations where I would hesitate now, and cleaner high ISO images for situations where I need to keep the shutter speed up or work in low light.
According to the rumours, we can put money on Canon staying ahead of their competition when it comes to resolution. But when it comes to the usability factors, it seems that Canon will be playing “catch-up” and, if the rumoured specs of the 5D Mark II are to be believed, in some areas it may struggle to get even close.
Canon reminds me a bit of those World War II Japanese soldiers isolated on Pacific islands and continuing to fight a war that had long since ended. It’s time for Canon to turn their considerable expertise to the enhancement of the camera as a tool rather than its transformation into a telescope. I hope the next few days will prove the rumour-mongers wrong and that Canon’s next iteration of the 5D will concentrate on features that allow me to take better photographs more easily, rather than just larger ones. Otherwise, a Nikon or, even, an Olympus E3 may be in my future.
There is a New King on the Court: Nikon at Wimbledon
Saturday 12 July 2008 Filed in: News
In some ways you might liken the Williams sisters to Canon, because up until this year, if you looked in the press box you saw only a swathe of big white lenses. Canon was clearly the dominant player in action sports photography. But if the Williams sisters have been impressive at Wimbledon, Roger Federer's reign as champion has seemed as predictable as the showers that soak the championships at inopportune intervals. A champion for five years in a row – and going for a sixth – surely he is a better analogy for Canon's complete dominance?
Until this year, that is. Just as Rafael Nadal won a scintillating contest to uplift the Men's Championship Cup, a glance at the photographers' dugout showed that there was a new kid on the block there too: the black lenses of Nikon seemed to be the match of those of the white ones from Canon. Such a transformation in the representation of pro gear is unprecedented in my experience and points to the undoubted success of the autofocus system and performance on the Nikon D3 and D300 – coupled with excellent high ISO noise control – making for fast, responsive cameras that produce output of the highest quality.
Like Nadal's focus and tenacity, you just have to sit back and admire it. I have too much invested in Canon glass to shift camps at this stage, so I am going to enjoy the competition. As the Men's Final showed, Nadal didn't just play well, he also brought out the best in Federer. I'm really hoping that the competition from Nikon will bring out the best from Canon.
Superwides: Canon 10-22 vs Tokina 12-24
Thursday 03 July 2008 Filed in: Reviews
For
landscape photography, a really wide lens can often
give a dramatic perspective – especially if there is
something close to camera in the foreground to give the
image depth. Even for nature photography, where
telephoto lenses are prized for their ability to draw a
subject closer, a wide angle lens can be useful for
setting animals or plants within their environment.
And, for some photographers, the wider the better.
But, there is an issue when it comes to getting really wide perspectives using entry-level digital cameras and prosumer models such as the Canon 40D and Nikon D300: the crop factor – whereby only a portion of the imaging circle of the lens is used – means that the image is effectively magnified compared to that produced on a camera with a full-frame sensor using the same lens, thereby negating its putative perspective. A 28 mm lens may be regarded as a standard wide angle on a 35mm film camera or digital camera with a full-frame sensor (such as the Canon 5D, Nikon D3 or the newly announced Nikon D700), but on a Nikon D60 or D300 that would effectively become a 42 mm lens, while on the Canon 450 or 40D, it would be transformed into a 45 mm lens.
Fortunately, for those wishing to use super wide angle lenses on crop cameras, the manufacturers have come up with a solution: extremely wide angle lenses. The Canon 10-22 f3.5-5.6 is one such lens. Intended to be mounted on Canon cameras with a 1.6 crop factor (ie those that can take EFS designated lenses), it produces images with an effective focal length of 16-35 (the same as that of the flagship 16-35 mm f2.8 L lens optimized for use with the 1D series of cameras). Perhaps its main rival when it comes to image quality is the robustly-made Tokina 12-24 f4.
Like many photographers before me, I was faced with the decision of which of the two lenses to buy? Read More...
But, there is an issue when it comes to getting really wide perspectives using entry-level digital cameras and prosumer models such as the Canon 40D and Nikon D300: the crop factor – whereby only a portion of the imaging circle of the lens is used – means that the image is effectively magnified compared to that produced on a camera with a full-frame sensor using the same lens, thereby negating its putative perspective. A 28 mm lens may be regarded as a standard wide angle on a 35mm film camera or digital camera with a full-frame sensor (such as the Canon 5D, Nikon D3 or the newly announced Nikon D700), but on a Nikon D60 or D300 that would effectively become a 42 mm lens, while on the Canon 450 or 40D, it would be transformed into a 45 mm lens.
Fortunately, for those wishing to use super wide angle lenses on crop cameras, the manufacturers have come up with a solution: extremely wide angle lenses. The Canon 10-22 f3.5-5.6 is one such lens. Intended to be mounted on Canon cameras with a 1.6 crop factor (ie those that can take EFS designated lenses), it produces images with an effective focal length of 16-35 (the same as that of the flagship 16-35 mm f2.8 L lens optimized for use with the 1D series of cameras). Perhaps its main rival when it comes to image quality is the robustly-made Tokina 12-24 f4.
Like many photographers before me, I was faced with the decision of which of the two lenses to buy? Read More...
Canon 70-300 DO Lens: Good Concept, Shame about the Contradiction
Sunday 11 May 2008 Filed in: Reviews
A recent
review of the Canon 70-300 DO lens in
Popular Photography has prompted me to
report my own experience with this much-maligned lens.
A portable telephoto is pretty much an oxymoron: an inevitable compromise between two contradictory concepts. For moving about, typically smaller and lighter are better. For image quality in a 300 mm lens, usually larger is better, with more glass correlating with better light gathering ability.
Enter Canon’s DO lenses. The DO stands for diffractive optics, and these are the first lenses from any manufacturer (and at this stage there are only two: the 400 f4 DO IS USM and the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM) to employ a grate in the lens elements that bends the incoming light to a greater extent than normal refractive lens elements, thereby allowing the lens to be smaller and largely free of the chromatic aberrations that plague digital photography (usually seen as purple fringing along high contrast edges).
First introduced in 2004, the Canon 70-300 DO IS USM lens (with a street price of around $1200 USD) promised to deliver the Holy Grail in the world of the portable telephoto zoom: a small, compact lens that could produce stellar image quality. Not only that, Canon threw in the very latest image stabilization technology (supposedly making you at least three stops steadier than you would otherwise be handheld), meaning that you could leave the tripod at home. It all seemed far too good to be true – and, in essence, it was. Read More...
A portable telephoto is pretty much an oxymoron: an inevitable compromise between two contradictory concepts. For moving about, typically smaller and lighter are better. For image quality in a 300 mm lens, usually larger is better, with more glass correlating with better light gathering ability.
Enter Canon’s DO lenses. The DO stands for diffractive optics, and these are the first lenses from any manufacturer (and at this stage there are only two: the 400 f4 DO IS USM and the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM) to employ a grate in the lens elements that bends the incoming light to a greater extent than normal refractive lens elements, thereby allowing the lens to be smaller and largely free of the chromatic aberrations that plague digital photography (usually seen as purple fringing along high contrast edges).
First introduced in 2004, the Canon 70-300 DO IS USM lens (with a street price of around $1200 USD) promised to deliver the Holy Grail in the world of the portable telephoto zoom: a small, compact lens that could produce stellar image quality. Not only that, Canon threw in the very latest image stabilization technology (supposedly making you at least three stops steadier than you would otherwise be handheld), meaning that you could leave the tripod at home. It all seemed far too good to be true – and, in essence, it was. Read More...
The Sigma DP1: Back to the Future
Thursday 24 April 2008 Filed in: Reviews
Let’s get
this established from the start: this set of first
impressions is NOT about image quality (IQ). The jury
is no longer out when it comes to the quality of images
produced by the DP1 – the world’s first “pocketable”
digital camera to include a sensor the size of those
found in DSLRs (Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras: you
know, the ones that have interchangeable lenses and
where you use a viewfinder that shows you the actual
image as it is seen looking through the lens). The
images from the DP1 may be prone under some
circumstances to having magenta or green colorcasts,
they may occasionally exhibit moiré artefacts, but
there is little doubt that the DP1 is capable of
producing the best image quality in its class. In good
light and with appropriate post-processing, images shot
in RAW stand up well against those coming from 8-10
megapixel DSLRs. In some areas, such as the extent of
its dynamic range (which is a measure of the ability to
retain details in the shadows and highlights), the
little DP1 may even trump its bigger brethren.
So – this is not about images, then, but how the Sigma DP1 is as a camera. Read More...
So – this is not about images, then, but how the Sigma DP1 is as a camera. Read More...
Canon 24-70 mm f2.8 L vs Canon 24-105 mm f4 L IS
Saturday 08 March 2008 Filed in: Reviews
There is
probably no more frequently asked question on
photography forums than what is the better lens when
comparing Canon's two professional mid-range zooms.
These discussions are invariably circular and pretty
much get nowhere, like an old married couple arguing:
"he said..." "she said..." "he said..." etc,
ad
infinitum. Typically they end
up confirming what we already know at the start: the
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L is one stop faster and somewhat
bigger; the Canon 24-105 f4 L has image stabilization
(IS) built into the lens and has more reach on the long
end. They are both built like tanks. They both cost a
similar amount (maybe not an arm and a leg when you
consider their quality, but the equivalent of a hand
and a few toes anyway). One's tempted to say, "You pays
ya money and you makes ya choice."
But what choice should you make? Read More...
But what choice should you make? Read More...