I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately,
to front only the essential facts of life,
and see if I could not learn what it had to teach,
and not, when I came to die,
discover that I had not lived.

Olympus 25 mm f2.8 pancake lens review: small really is beautiful

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...

Canon 5D Mark II: great mind, shame about the body

Canon5DII
I haven’t been without a Canon SLR camera for well over 30 years. Sure, there were times when I wondered whether I’d backed the right horse. And, in the days before digital, it had essentially become a two-horse race: Pentax had lost their way; Yashica/Contax were simply lost; and Minolta were going their own way, which proved to be up a dead end. On the other hand, Nikon had superb lenses and the Nikon F4 was a camera that grown men drooled over. In fact, given the choice of a night with Claudia Schiffer or an F4, most photography nuts I knew at the time would have opted for the F4 on the basis that it was as close to Heaven as one could get while still surviving the night.

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...

Olympus E-3: Initial Impressions

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...

Superwides: Canon 10-22 vs Tokina 12-24

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...

Canon 70-300 DO Lens: Good Concept, Shame about the Contradiction

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...

The Sigma DP1: Back to the Future

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...

Canon 24-70 mm f2.8 L vs Canon 24-105 mm f4 L IS

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...

Leica D Summilux 25mm f1.4 – Review

This is a remarkably squat, unexpectedly heavy lens. If it were a member of a rugby team, there is no doubt that it would be a front-row prop. But this is no thick-necked thug capable of doing only a single job. Defying its build, it shows more of the finesse of a ballet dancer. Read More...

Four-thirds Sensors and the Problem of Exposure

Digital photography has brought with it many advantages, but in general there are two related areas from the film days that have been compromised in the move to a world of ones and zeros: dynamic range and exposure latitude. The negative effects of these two aspects seem to be most apparent in small-sized sensors. Leaving aside the tiny sensors in most point and shoots, I am going to comment briefly on the importance of nailing exposure in four-thirds cameras, which use a sensor half the size of a traditional 35 mm frame. Read More...

Leica D-Lux 3 vs Canon G9

When it comes to point-and-shoot (P&S) cameras offering manual control and able to provide access to the RAW files, the field is a rather limited one. Two of the most promising are the Leica D-Lux 3 (essentially the same as the Panasonic LX2 with the addition of a red dot and some pretty trivial software tweaks) and the Canon G9. As a number of people have asked about comparisons between the D-Lux 3 and the G9, I thought I should provide some initial impressions having recently obtained a G9 to go with the D-Lux 3. Read More...