Category Archives: Cameras

Things that go ‘Click’

How much is too much?

Cameras

The Nikon D3 is pushing the limits of complexity

I have never been a fan of some of the needless menu complexity of Canon’s 5D, my mainstay camera. So now that the estimable DP Review has started poking about the design of the full frame Nikon D3 I was eager to take a look how the designs compared.

First indications are not encouraging. The vast number of menu options is an order more complex than anything on the 5D and I have to wonder where all this is going. Worse, just like with the Canon, most choices have to be made after scrolling through options using the LCD screen on the back, rather than with knobs and dials on the body. Knobs and dials with fixed functions (shutter speed, say, or ISO sensitivity) are the preferred way to go. No hunt and peck. No squinting. It’s the sole superior feature remaining in film cameras. Any time a display provides for more than one variable, the user interface suffers.

So while I greatly appreciate that Nikon’s lens mount is backwards compatible with just about every Nikon F mount lens made, albeit with some compromise in automation with older lenses, I have to wonder just who needs all those hundreds of choices. Wouldn’t it be easier to relegate all of those to an application on your computer which would permit storage of the user’s selections when the camera is connected? Let’s face it, adjustment of variables is an 80/20 game – you want some almost all the time – focus, aperture, shutter speed, ISO – whereas most are accessed once in a blue moon.

The woeful state of consumer digital cameras

Cameras

There is, in reality, very little choice when it comes to effective tools

A friend in England, a fine landscape photographer who has had work published by the BBC, asked for upgrade advice relating to her 4 mp digital point-and shoot. Here’s what I wrote:

“I am, believe it or not, the worst possible person to ask about the right digital camera. I used film for the past 45 years and only went digital when Canon announced the large sensor-equipped 5D. It’s outrageously expensive, overpriced, and bulky, so I would not recommend it. However, as big prints are my ‘thing’, it was the only choice.

However, one site which I do read (it’s written by an Englishman, by the way) is DPreview. Though they take advertising dollars, they are very objective and never kow-tow to manufacturers, not hesitating to trash bad gear. Unusual for commercial sites.

They have a half decent ‘camera picker’ – click on ‘Buying Guide’.

What little I know is:

1 – Don’t get caught up in the ‘more megapixels’ craze. With the very small sensors in most digitals, once you have 6 or 7 mp, quality thereafter does not improve. You cannot get a quart out of a pint pot.
2 – Most digitals have zooms – only look for optical zooms. ‘Digital zooms’ merely electronically magnify the image resulting in simply horribly poor definition.
3 – Don’t buy small just for the smallness – it usually translates into cameras that are difficult to hold steadily.
4 – Look for an optical viewfinder. The LCD screen-only cameras (sadly, the majority) have screens that are very hard to see in daylight and, as you are holding the camera at arm’s length, will rob you of a steady hold afforded by a traditional v/f camera braced against the forehead. All digitals have LCD screens – few have an optical v/f.
5 – If you have ambitions to make larger prints (my standard is 18″ x 24″ but I would hardly advocate that) look for Optical Image Stabilization – motion sensors in the camera reduce the visible effects of camera shake which so take away from definition with bigger prints.
6 – Consider buying a small tripod and use the self-timer for vibration free pictures. With landscapes you are rarely in a hurry.
7 – Avoid ‘electronic’ viewfinders (a small, blurry, LCD screen you look at through the prism) found in many of the lower priced, fixed lens, SLRs. They are simply horrors to use.
8 – Forget about super telephoto zoom lenses. You don’t need them and they are of poor optical quality. Rather, with your subject matter, a really wide lens is far more important.

I ran the following parameters in the DPreview.com screen for you:

Wide lens at the short end of the zoom lens (28mm)
Image stabilization – Yes
Viewfinder – optical
Current model – yes
All other parameters – Don’t Mind

Only one camera came up!


Canon SD800IS. 28mm wide lens and a proper viewfinder, not to mention IS

This is what I would call ‘medium priced’ – $320 or so here.”

So with just a few rational parameters the choice comes down to one. How sad. When will digital camera makers start taking pictures with their mostly execrable creations and realize that what they make is not what the consumer wants? Or do they all reside in Detroit? Sure, the consumer does not know what he wants, but it’s hardly difficult to explain. Just use the came4ra you produce, and you will see just how bad it is.

Canon 5D sensor dust

Cameras, Canon 5D

Could this be the reason?

I was Googling the subject of sensor dust, which so seems to bedevil the 5D, and came across a very funny criticism by one user who may well come from eastern Europe, given the grammar. What it misses in terms of the Queen’s English it gains in clarity.

“Is vacuum pump, not camera”.

So it got me to thinking. Could the lens design have something to do with it? After all, per square inch of sensor, the 5D should gather no more or less dust than its siblings, cropped or full frame, yet the 5D seems to be a problem more often than the other models.

Part of it may be that users of the full frame sensor in the 5D are either consistently making big enlargements or pixel peeping in Photoshop just to appreciate the gorgeous definition of which this sensor is capable. Bottom line, they enlarge more, because they can, and more magnification means more dust becomes visible. On the other hand, a like-sized print from a cropped sensor camera requires a 60% greater enlargement ratio, so maybe this is not a good explanation.

Yet why is it that I can put away my 5D with 24-105mm in place – my ‘standard’ lens – only to find that sensor dust has reappeared even though the lens has not been removed?

So I took the 24-105mm off the camera and, holding the rear to my cheek, worked the manual zoom ring. Sure enough, a ‘whoosh’ of air could be felt when the ring was activated vigorously. You can gauge the stroke here with the lens set at 24mm and 105mm, respectively:


Focusing seems to generate no air rush, probably because the lens uses internal focusing. Likewise for my 85mm f/1.8 and 200mm f/2.8 lenses. By contrast, the 15mm Fisheye and the 50mm f/1.4 use traditional focusing, but the throw is so short that no detectable rush of air could be felt using the ‘cheek test’.

So let’s assume that cropped sensor Canon users for the most part avoid the 24-105 (the effective range of 38-168mm being far less useful to them than the 24-105mm on a full frame sensor). So 5D users, many of whom favor this lens, do indeed have a ‘vacuum cleaner’, or more correctly, an air pump, attached to their cameras. The only thing I cannot figure out is why 1D and 1Ds/Mark II full frame users rarely complain of this malady. Maybe they opt for the 17-40mm, 16-35mm and 70-200mm L lenses, all of which seem to have a superior reputation for dust sealing? In this regard, the 24-105mm is anything but ‘pro’ quality, though there’s no arguing with the superb optical performance.

For me the cure is probably to avoid using the 24-105mm in dusty, dry conditions, opting for fixed focal length lenses in lieu. Not very satisfactory.

Maybe someone out there has done some comparative testing of the issues and causes?

All this said, the net throughput even when sensor dust intrudes, is still exceptional, especially if a ‘roll’ needs the use of the stamp & clone feature in Aperture, which allows simultaneous removal of dust motes in the image from multiple pictures at the same time.

A Wii lesson for camera makers

Cameras, Photography

Simple is good – when will camera makers learn that?

After stentorian efforts to actually buy one, our experience with the Wii game console from Nintendo is nothing short of a revelation.

You open the box, plug it in, disregard the 500 warning messages to keep scum tort lawyers in their place, and play. Wave the controller about and the player on the screen moves in sync. The graphics are simple, verging on crude, the big instruction book can be disregarded and the result is insane fun!

Now I have to add that I do not play video games. Our son does, now. The above paragraph should have been written by him, except he is just five and his typing needs work. Come to think of it, he can’t read either. But just ask him if he enjoys his Wii.

Nintendo, like Apple, Thinks Different. Where Sony and Microsoft make game consoles of increasing complexity, with their sleazy back door attempt at taking control of your home computing, Nintendo focused on just a few things – ease of use, price and fun. Result? The competition is scrambling to emulate Nintendo’s wireless controller with its built in accelerometers and speakers. It will take them a year. The results won’t be pretty, thanks to Nintendo’s patents. First three month sales of the Wii exceed those of any other game console ever made. The stock has doubled in the past year. Get my drift?

So unless Nintendo or Apple decide to make a camera (I wish!), there’s a huge opening here for manufacturers looking to make a profitable entry into the market. Scrap all those silly buttons, LCD screens, largely useless zoom lenses, slow response times and poor ergonomics. Make the lens fixed. Add an optical viewfinder. Give it just one button – the one you click to snap the picture. Abolish shutter lag. So far that’s all like the Box Brownie of one hundred years ago on which, believe me here, the patents have expired. Put in a big sensor to ban image noise. Make it wireless to upload pictures to your computer. And, like the Wii, sell it for $299. Or $199. Or $99.

Happy users and profits follow. What am I missing here?

The problem with P&S cameras

Cameras

Bottom line is, they all suck

Having just read another thoroughly depressing review of yet another Point & Shoot offering from a major manufacturer on the estimable DPReview.com, I have to wonder.

This one claims to be a top of the line offering. DPReview begs to differ, concluding that the camera has slow focusing and poor image sharpness, not to mention no RAW mode, a clunky interface and useless zoom range. It’s priced at some $350.

So why do these major manufacturers, and they are all guilty – Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, etc. – persist in turning out such execrable equipment?

A recent move by Canon to drop RAW from its P&S cameras may be a clue. The few of these cameras that have half decent lenses would likely embarass the costlier DSLRs from these same makers for half the price. So the consumer gets to suffer on the altar of product differentiation.

That’s a shame, so I suppose it’s little wonder that the much anticipated Sigma DP1 P&S will likely cost closer to $1000 than $300; on the other hand, you get a half decent sensor for your money. If the camera focuses fast, has low shutter lag and a decent lens – not something Sigma’s history of truly frightful lenses makes me too positive about – my $800 is waiting.

That’s if we will ever see this icon – it was last announced that the camera would be available 5 months ago.